This special issue is devoted to trust, institutions, and their ties, specifically. Such ties have been of central concern for philosophers and social scientists for a while, and seem to become an increasingly widespread subject of public debate. This bundle covers two distinct worries, resulting in two (generally complementary) directions of investigation. The classic one, inherited from Hobbes, deals with the importance of institutions for trust. The other one, which is more central to this...

Institutions are naturally seen as the stable and relatively fixed backbone of the social world. While the structural role of institutions is usually discussed in social ontology, the temporal implications of this regulation are often overlooked. It is indeed tempting to take a present-centred approach to institutions. The latter clearly are instrumental in stabilizing and structuring the social coordination between a number of actors. But it is all too easy to focus only on their role in syn...

This paper attempts to clarify the relations between trust, agency and latent forms of discrimination. Its main argument is in social philosophy, and it articulates considerations from moral psychology and the philosophy of language. The aim is to provide a better insight into the deflated level of trustworthiness that members of stigmatized categories are credited with. Identity prejudice determining low levels of credibility for its victims has received substantial philosophical attention in the wake of the epistemic injustice literature. Instead of (...) the standard cognitive concept of trust usually brought in, I apply a moral (or agential) account of trust (drawing on Domenicucci and Holton 2017) to discriminatory issues. We can fail to trust the trustworthy (Jones 2013) in a variety of ways. When it comes to the members of discriminated categories, I argue in the first part, this happens because they are refused a necessary condition of trust: a presumption of agency. This presumption of agency, prima facie attributed to human adults, is precisely what goes wrong for the members of stigmatized groups. Not recognised as individual agents, but as mere quasi-agents, the discriminatees cannot be trusted: their trustworthiness actually becomes unthinkable. The very possibility to give reasons for or against out-group members’ trustworthiness is thus dismissed. Articulating documentality and feminist philosophy of language, the second part shows that members of stigmatized categories have their conduct described and recorded through a non-agential grammar. Once widespread and socially dominant, non-agential descriptions of their action give the discriminatees a peculiar moral status that jeopardizes the very possibility of their being recognised as trustworthy. (shrink)

Les technologies numériques facilitent de nombreuses manières nos interactions sociales — communication, échange, délégation, réputation, etc. Quel est l’impact de ces technologies sur les institutions qui sont le support et le cadre de nos vies sociales? Une réponse classique voit ces technologies comme des outils qui renforcent l’initiative individuelle et la possibilité de développer directement des relations en se passant de tiers de confiance. La transition numérique est alors comprise comme désintermédiation. L’article critique cette approche. En ce qui concerne leurs (...) conséquences sociales, les technologies numériques, les technologies numériques devraient elles–mêmes être traitées comme des intermédiaires sociaux spécifiques. Peut–on se fier à ces nouveaux niveaux d’intermédiation sociale? Trois raisons sont identifiées, pour lesquelles, en l’état actuel, ces institutions numériques ne méritent pas notre confiance. Des tentatives actuelles pour bâtir la fiabilité de ces intermédiaires sociaux sont présentées. (shrink)

Les technologies numériques facilitent de nombreuses manières nos interactions sociales — communication, échange, délégation, réputation, etc. Quel est l’impact de ces technologies sur les institutions qui sont le support et le cadre de nos vies sociales? Une réponse classique voit ces technologies comme des outils qui renforcent l’initiative individuelle et la possibilité de développer directement des relations en se passant de tiers de confiance. La transition numérique est alors comprise comme désintermédiation. L’article critique cette approche. En ce qui concerne leurs (...) conséquences sociales, les technologies numériques, les technologies numériques devraient elles–mêmes être traitées comme des intermédiaires sociaux spécifiques. Peut–on se fier à ces nouveaux niveaux d’intermédiation sociale? Trois raisons sont identifiées, pour lesquelles, en l’état actuel, ces institutions numériques ne méritent pas notre confiance. Des tentatives actuelles pour bâtir la fiabilité de ces intermédiaires sociaux sont présentées. (shrink)