Enero-Junio 2023

Vol. 13 No. 1

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

Interacción y Perspectiva Dep. Legal pp 201002Z43506

Revista de Trabajo Social ISSN 2244-808X

Vol. 13 N

enero-junio

ARTÍCULO DE INVESTIGACIÓN

Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía confianza/desconfianza

en las estructuras de los poderes públicos contemporáneos*

/DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7382702

Pavel Karabushchenko **, Olga Oskina ***, Ekaterina Kudryashova ****,

Alexander Grigoriev *****, Alexander Rogov ******

Resumen

Este artículo analiza los principios fundamentales de la confianza, que son de naturaleza

filosófica. La dicotomía confianza/desconfianza revela el contenido de las relaciones

sociopolíticas y permite especificar el nivel de consentimiento y conflicto de los actores

activos. Esta dicotomía contiene tanto un elemento de creencia como un componente de

respuesta psicológica y actitud racional ante el problema del bien y el mal. La confianza

es un consenso entre el público y las autoridades. Las autoridades son tan públicas como

abiertas y responsables, así como las élites son responsables de sus actividades

profesionales. En una crisis, una serie de normas y principios se desplazan o incluso se

pervierten por completo; tanto que adquieren rasgos manifiestamente grotescos y

carnavalescos. La confianza en estas figuras públicas disminuye hasta su mínimo o

incluso se transforma en su contrario. En las estructuras de los poderes públicos

contemporáneos, la dicotomía confianza/desconfianza desempeña el papel de factor que

determina el éxito o el fracaso, la victoria o la derrota. La práctica política demuestra

que el poder público está en constante retroceso desde sus raíces filosóficas,

establecidas en el mundo antiguo (Platón, Aristóteles). Se sabe que la confianza de la

sociedad en las autoridades va hacia la confianza del propio gobierno en su pueblo.

Cuando el gobierno confía en su pueblo, se comporta con más seguridad y decisión y,

por el contrario, un bajo nivel de confianza o su ausencia total amenaza con un conflicto

de intereses.

Palabras clave: dicotomía, confianza/desconfianza, autoridad y sociedad, élites,

conflicto.

Abstract

Philosophical roots of trust/distrust dichotomy in the structures of

contemporary public authorities

This paper discusses the fundamental principles of trust which are of a philosophical

nature. Trust/distrust dichotomy reveals the content of socio-political relations and

allows specifying the level of the consent and conflict of active actors. This dichotomy

contains both an element of belief and a component of psychological response and

rational attitude to the problem of good and evil. Trust is a consensus between the public

and the authorities. Authorities are as public as they turn out to be open and responsible,

as the elites are responsible for their professional activities. In a crisis, a number of

norms and principles are shifted or even completely perverted; so much that they

Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 13 N

1 / enero-junio, 2023

acquire demonstratively grotesque and carnival traits. The trust in such public figures

decreases to its minimum or even changes into its opposite. In the structures of

contemporary public authorities, the trust/distrust dichotomy plays the role of the factor

that determines success or failure, victory or defeat. The political practice shows that a

public authority is a constant retreat from its philosophical roots, laid down in the ancient

world (Plato, Aristotle). It is known that the trust of society in the authorities goes

towards the trust of the government itself to its people. When the government trusts its

people, it behaves more confidently and decisively, and, on the contrary, a low level of

trust or its complete absence threatens with a conflict of interests.

Keywords: dichotomy, trust/distrust, authority and society, elites, conflict.

Recibido: 29/09/2022 Aceptado: 25/11/2022

* El artículo fue realizado sobre la base de los resultados de una investigación en el marco de la asignación

estatal de prestación de servicios públicos Nº 075-01287-22-02 de fecha 19.09.2022. (Acuerdo sobre la

subvención del gobierno No. 075-03-2022-201/2 de fecha 21 de septiembre de 2021).

** Doctor en filosofía, Universidad Estatal de Astrakhan en honor a V.N.Tatishchev, Astrakhan, Rusia. Correo

electrónico: pavel_karabushenko@mail.ru

*** Departamento de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Estatal de Astrakhan en

honor a V.N.Tatishchev, Astrakhan, Rusia. Correo electrónico: oskina_olga@mail.ru

**** Departamento de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Estatal de Astrakhan en

honor a V.N.Tatishchev, Astrakhan, Rusia. Correo electrónico: eafanasova@mail.ru

***** Departamento de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Estatal de Astrakhan en

honor a V.N.Tatishchev, Astrakhan, Rusia. Correo electrónico: proeu@yandex.ru

****** Departamento de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad Estatal de Astrakhan en

honor a V.N.Tatishchev, Astrakhan, Rusia. Correo electrónico: alexr.89@mail.ru

1.- Introduction

When it comes to some philosophical roots, the specific metaphysical principles of

the problem under consideration are meant and the deep awareness of the roots leads

to understanding their essence. The category of the good is the very deep foundation in

the trust/distrust dichotomy which has been assessed as the “core” of social being since

the times of Plato and Aristotle.

Like characteristics of the good, the trust/distrust dichotomy specifies people’s attitude

to the circumstances that are especially significant for them. The public nature of

democratic power makes it particularly dependent on public approval and consensus

within an elite group itself. Publicity for authorities means to be discussed and accepted

by the majority. Besides, an approval never equals 100 per cent in politics. Even under

totalitarianism, there are still a certain percentage of those who disagree with the opinion

of the vast majority. Consequently, the approval/disapproval dichotomy is permanent

and variable.

For a primitive man, trust is a guarantee of safety to enter the cave, knowing that

there is no saber-toothed tiger. Little has changed in the human psychology since that

time. Trust is the absence of a security threat and a guarantee of the good, not harm;

trust occurs when there is no threat or danger; trust is a guarantee to avoid negativity;

it is the belief that a person deals with the truth and that no one tell lies to them. Trust

provides for constructive dialogue, interaction, security and mutual respect. Distrust

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

means threat, the possibility of harm and the striving to avoid this in order to prevent

unwanted mistakes.

Trust is a resource that needs to be properly used by both the authorities and the

public itself. The resource is very specific and therefore always requires a delicate

treatment. This delicacy is expressed in the increased ethical activity and a humanistic

approach in assessing the political reality.

2. Materials and methods

The methodological basis of this paper comprises such methods as dialectics,

comparative studies, hermeneutics, semiotics, as well as methods of systematization,

modelling and design. As a working hypothesis, the thesis is considered that the level of

public trust in authorities directly depends on the quality of the professional competence

of ruling elite communities. If the quality decreases, the effect of carnival political culture

arises, directly testifying to the destructiveness of the entire considered political system.

The present study is based on a value approach to assessing the authorities’

performance.

“Values and value orientations predetermine the basis of the phenomenon of trust

in power. The correlation of the deeds of a particular authority with one’s own

expectations and value orientations is the basis of its identification as “own” or

“alien”, “close” or “hostile”. The degree of conformity of expectations and value

positions of individuals towards the real activity of authorities is a measure of

their trust in this power. Accordingly, the trust in power is defined as a form of

attitude towards its structures and representatives, expressed in cognitive and

emotional-sensual assessments of its activities regulated by the thesaurus”

(Grigorenko, 2013: 22).

The issues of the political worldview stay outside the authors’ study since this topic

requires a special scientific analysis. The problem of destructiveness and the destruction

of social harmony is mentioned which also impacts on the formation of the dialectical

trust/distrust contradiction. The authors constantly have in mind all these topics and

they accompany the present study and the authors address them as needed.

The measurements of the level of public trust and distrust in institutions and

authorities, regularly conducted by sociologists, provide the richest empirical material

on the basis of which the authors’ analytical conclusions are drawn, regarding the current

state of affairs. Political sociology allows keeping finger on the pulse of political events

and diagnosing the states of the relationship between power and society.

3. Results and discussion

1. Philosophy trust

Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 13 N

1 / enero-junio, 2023

Traditionally, trust is believed to be the basis of all socio-political institutions. As a

rule, trust is considered in dichotomous unity with its opposite - distrust. In the

philosophical tradition, one of the main features of trust is the moral behavior of a

person, expressing such an attitude of one person to another which proceeds from a

conviction of its decency, faith, responsibility, honesty and truthfulness. The opposite of

trust is distrust, understood as a state in which a person’s sincerity and honesty are

doubted. Consequently, morality is the first means of measuring trust/distrust in the

social environment.

Most often, trust is defined as confidently positive or optimistic expectations about

the behavior of another one, and distrust as confidently negative expectations (Hosmer,

1995; Kramer & Cook, 2004). The dichotomy of trust/distrust is described by other

dichotomous pairs –“expectations of benefits - expectations of harm” and “expectations

of good - expectations of evil”, which directly leads the axiology to ethics that explores

the deep foundations of the human race. It is known that in the dichotomy, the balance

(balance of powers) is disturbed by the growth of one quality, due to a decrease in the

level of another one.

The second criterion of trust/distrust assessment after morality is the axiological

assessment of what is happening. The clue between trust and distrust lies in their conflict

of goals, interests and values. It is believed that the subject’s readiness for enmity or

competition causes the anticipation of revenge and generates “preventive” distrust

(Kupreychenko & Tabkharova, 2017).

From the point of view of platonism, trust ensures the cooperation and successful

achievement of desired goals; it is consent, the voluntary creation of benefit and good;

it gives the way to cooperation, union and spiritual unity (in Russian: sobornost).

Confidence is a sign of the friendship of citizens and the well-being of the state when

everyone is professionally engaged in their business and does it in the best possible way

(Plato, AlcibiadesI, 127b) (Plato, 1990-1994).

Any social contract is based on the trust between its participants to each other. Trust

means the absence of malice, cunning, hypocrisy and manipulation by the participants

in the social contract. Therefore, the third criterion for assessing the trust/distrust

dichotomy is personalism, emanating in its judgments from the fact that democracies

should be interested in creating a political system focused on respect for a person.

In political terms, the fourth criterion for evaluating the trust/distrust dichotomy is

the benefit (or harm). Here, the emersion into the world of political subjective

expediency takes place where the principles of utilitarianism and pragmatism operate.

This is a world of dominating selfish people whose ambitions determine the nature of

their assessments and justifications of good and evil.

Finally, the fifth formal feature is the legal assessment of reality; the criterion for

assessing and verifying the legal reality is a constitutional value. Law acts as an arbiter

and assessment of authority legitimacy.

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

In politics, trust is often replaced by the concept of belief but there is a significant

difference between belief and trust - when the first one involves an irrational assessment

of the reality, then the second one seeks to rely on objective criteria and markers and

establish its “mathematical” exact parameters (hence all these sociological surveys and

measurements).

The level of trust greatly depends on the awareness and legal competence of citizens.

The first one enables accurate determining what truth and what delusion (lie) is, the

latter one teaches to act within the law, in case of distrust of the current government.

Awareness and competence form the basis of political self-sufficiency.

Trust has its upsides and downsides: the upside involves sobornost (spiritual unity)

when there is complete agreement; the downside is gullibility fraught with the threat of

deception and manipulation by an unscrupulous partner. The latter becomes a

transitional condition of trust in its opposite form, which disrupts the balance of power

to a negative result. When trust disappears, everything disappears. Distrust stabilizes

the inflation of relations, plunges everyone and everything into a state of disintegration,

destructiveness and degradation.

It should also not be forgotten about the situation of the “balance of forces” when

both of these values (trust and distrust) are in the “balance of forces”. This is the time

of doubt and indecision. Situations when no one can give a definite answer (neither “yes”

nor “no”). Such situations can develop into turning points of history and often do this

when any violation of such balance can tip the scales in one direction or another. An

example here is the so-called tradition of “secret history” when the number of those who

doubt and those who unconditionally believe in “conspiracy theories” is approximately

equal (Stone & Kuznick, 2014).

2. Psychology of trust/distrust

In psychology, trust means an open relationship between people that contains

confidence in the decency of another person (subject). The trust/distrust dichotomy has

the most important influence on the initial phase of personality formation (“the

cornerstone of personality viability”), developing confidence or uncertainty in it and

success or difficulties in its socialization.

It is generally accepted that trust does not always represent positive expectations.

The sincerity of relationships can increase the trust of relationships, but if a person

initially does not trust another person, then even the good coming from them can be

perceived and assessed as insidious and malicious intent (Garfinkel, 2009). Suspicion

can be the first step towards destroying both trust and distrust. Everything depends on

how the subject assesses the prospect of the good. The formula for this relationship is

encrypted in such proverbs as “Free cheese can be found only in a mousetrap” and

“Beware of Greeks even they bring gifts”. It is positive and negative expectations that

become the line between trust and distrust:

“the expectation of the good (a sign of trust) including the form of censure,

restriction or punishment (these expectations can hardly be called positive), as

Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 13 N

1 / enero-junio, 2023

well as the expectation of harm (a sign of distrust), including the form of

undeserved reward, adulation, suppleness, etc.” (Kupreychenko & Tabkharova,

2017: 55).

In this regard, researchers distinguish the specific functions of trust and distrust. Due

to trust, a subject interacts with the world, experience and transforms it and themselves.

It is the trust that creates the conditions for experience, exchange and interaction of a

subject with the outside world. Distrust also contributes to the protection and isolation

of the subject and their socio-psychological space. This also shows the protective

function of distrust. Thus, one of the signs that can separate trust and distrust is “the

orientation towards exchange and interaction and the orientation towards protection and

isolation” (Kupreychenko & Tabkharova, 2017: 55).

Psychologists divide the trust/distrust dichotomy into two groups: 1) the factors for

assessing the positive/negative prospects of potential cooperation or interaction

(interest in trust, value of trust, expectation of the good as a result of trust); 2) the

factors for predicting the success of building the trust relationships (predicting the

possibility and ease/difficulties of the trust building process) (Kupreychenko &

Tabkharova, 2017).

In the psychology of trust/distrust, an important role is played by an emotional

reaction to current events. Emotions are able to play a cruel joke in assessing the

situation. In political history, there are a lot of examples of how the emotional over-

excitement of politicians and the public led to fatal erroneous decisions. Historians still

cannot accurately assess the results of those fatal reactions.

Both ethical standards and aesthetic values contribute greatly to the development of

trust. The French writer Anatole France stated that we tend to believe everything said,

especially when it is said in a nice way. The beauty of the constructions of political

rhetoric might be mesmerizing and uplifting. On occasion, the beauty of words

supersedes the true meaning of what is said. The public find themselves under the

hypnosis of their leaders who convince the society of their rightness by the force of their

eloquence and they believe them. That belief is a kind of trust, a fanatical trust. Such

trust of the public in their leaders is observed in the history of totalitarian states.

In the authors’ opinion, there is one more important feature of the dichotomy under

discussion. The trust/distrust dichotomy has a certain border zone (frontier) where their

signs are blurred so much that it is sometimes impossible to determine “what is what”.

This is a state of doubt when black can seem white and evil actively pretends to be the

good and pushes it to the periphery of relations. Ignorance and uncertainty mix all signs

of trust/distrust and the subject is simply lost in their assessments. Such a state of

uncertainty is possible to be prolonged and act either as a catalyst for conflict or on the

contrary as a safety valve that relieves the tension in the relationship.

3. Political trust/distrust dichotomy

In the structures of contemporary public authorities, trust/distrust turns out to be

the cornerstone which the public well-being and the strength of the construction of the

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

power vertical is based on. Trust gives rise to the willingness of people to observe and

strengthen the common rules of conduct. At the same time, the opinion of the public is

not only won by the authorities (as in the case of democracies) but also achieved through

manipulation and falsification (as it is often observed in totalitarianism). The main goal

of all such actions is to achieve order and harmony in the political space of social

existence.

The category of trust itself has a value characteristic and is largely shaped by the

historical traditions of a particular society. The experts draw attention to the fact that in

different socio-cultural environments, the levels of trust and distrust of authorities differ

significantly. The socio-cultural mechanism for the trust formation is largely associated

with traditions and was created historically. So, it has a value basis (Grigorenko, 2013:

4).

The socio-political trust possesses two equal values: the first one is trust/distrust of

society in its authorities and the second one is trust/distrust of authorities themselves

in their society (Dugin, 2018). From the ratio of these two parameters, the formula of

specific trust/distrust between authorities and society is built. Consequently, the case in

point is mutual trust (or distrust) of the society power.

In the socio-political life, much depends on whether the public believes in the virtues

of their rulers or considers them a bearer of evil. Even Desiderius Erasmus in his treatise

“The Education of a Christian Prince (written almost simultaneously with “The Sovereign”

by N. Machiavelli) declared that the correct education of the sovereign changes into a

guarantee of moral policy. The hope of victory over evil melts if a ruler manifests

ridiculous thoughts and ignoble wishes (Erasmus, 1936). It is dangerous to trust and

help such rulers since there is a threat of despotism and tyranny. For justice, it is worth

reminding that Erasmus himself wrote his moral exhortations to the German emperor

Charles V of Habsburg and the English king Henry VIII who both did not meet his hopes

and destroyed them with their miserable (despotic) reign.

It should be specially noted that italic ridiculous thoughts and ignoble wishes are the

core of those elite communities that have the vices of carnival political culture. Trust is

formed from knowledge (belief) that the subject of power formulates and makes a

decision themselves. On the contrary, the level of distrust to such authorities only

increases in the absence of such a conviction. As a result, this poses the issue of the

moral appearance of authorities and their moral assessment by the society with or

without meaning to.

It is even unknown who actually makes political decisions in the West nowadays.

However, it is obviously that they are not those who officially rule. Those who officially

rule decide nothing, understand nothing and say nothing. They only voice the decisions

of the “deep state”. The so-called “decision-making centers” are not always located at

the official residence address of authorities. As a rule, shadow structures are removed

from the zone of public policy into the sphere of informal relations. The case in hand is

“deep state” and “deep influencing elite”.

Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 13 N

1 / enero-junio, 2023

It is fundamentally important for the government itself to know which groups of

citizens are less gullible about its policies, which helps it timely to adjust its policies and

direct the resources to increase the level of trust among these segments of citizens

(Petruk, 2017).

Trust promotesthe activity towards humanistic solidarity and affirmation of spiritual

unity in planning the image of the future. In the absence of trust, alternative and deviant

forms of activities arise (corruption, suspicion, caste and hostility) that contribute to the

development of a destructive understanding and evaluation of the social view of the

world (Scott, 2005). Thus, a necessary condition for the existence of tolerance is the

trust of the citizens in their authorities.

Distrust causes tensions that pave the way for conflicts. Lack of trust gives rise to

suspicion of malice, hostility and harm that worsen the situation. This threat can be

prevented by reducing the level of distrust of government and its specific

representatives. The popularity or unpopularity of politicians leads to the growth or

decline of trust in the society. Distrust means disunity and disagreement, trust means

union and agreement. Any spiritual unity is based on trust. Russia is a country of spiritual

unity. The spiritual unity (sobornost) is the basis of Russia’s well-being. It is also

important to remember that the government itself is to trust to its people. The last

Russian Tsar Nikolai II was always convinced that the Russian people loved him and

supported him. It is known from the political Russian history of the 20th century what

all his naivety led to. Charles I, the king of England from the House of Stuart, and Louis

XVI, the French monarch of the Bourbon family, were naive in their political affairs too.

Trust deficit is able to activate the destructive tendencies that may lead to tragic

results or bring to life carnival political traditions (comic perception and satirical

assessment of the unreasonable actions of authorities). Manipulative political technology

opens up wide scope for this kind of distortion. The political carnival is a world of deceived

deceivers.

4. Deficit of trust in public authorities

It is generally accepted that the lack of trust in public authorities produces some

problems in the construction and functioning of the “healthy” legal democratic society.

There is a problem with the public liability of representative bodies for their violation of

law and order. In political history, the problem of forming and increasing public

confidence of population in relation to all branches of government runs like a red thread.

So, the main problem is the lack of trust and the growing level of distrust of authorities.

Trust deficit directly depends on moral deficits in the society and especially in the

authorities. If the moral aspect is excluded from political practices, then the publicity of

authorities becomes legitimately dubious.

In conditions of digitalization, detecting an accurate index of trust in the authorities

is of particular importance. The modern system of communication assumes the openness

and transparency of authority actions. The flows of information simply overwhelm the

political space, giving rise to various reactions of the population and its active part (civil

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

society). It is known that the “phenomenon of information abundance” generates the

phenomenon of “information noise”, a chaotic mixture of truthful and false information

from so-called fake sources. The information consumer ceases to filter the information

and loses the ability to reliably understand the processes taking place and adequately

respond to them. This leads to incorrect decisions (errors) (Kurenevsky, 2019). This

state of politics opens up wide possibilities for manipulating public opinion and

discrediting opponents.

The government itself is interested in managing the process of developing

trust/distrust, directing it as it needs. Political technologists (advertising and image

making) get to their job using existing techniques and methods of “organizing trust”

(e.g., ensuring the desired outcome in elections).

Electoral democratic cycles lead to a frequent change of ruling elite, which gives rise

to the phenomenon of removing the responsibility of one generation of politicians to

another. The previously assumed obligations are denied under the plausible pretext of

an official change in the vector of policy. This results in both destroying previous

agreements and the political reputation of a country. In such countries there is no

institution of reputation because politicians often pretend that nothing is happening. The

rating of political trust in such authorities always remains at a low level.

Public trust in the authorities is largely determined by the opinion of expert academic

community. Scientific support takes responsibility for the development of an adequate

perception of objective reality. However, the long-term experience of analysing this kind

of work shows that not everything is satisfactory in this kind of assessment by the

academic environment. This is primarily deals with the expert pool itself.

It often occurs that a subjectively chosen expert community is biased by certain

political and economic forces. The special views of the world created by them to an order

(under specific grants) often contrast with the objective reality. Consequently, the

portraits of politicians and political processes “painted” by them do not always coincide

with the reality since they are often the wishful thinking of the experts. Such experts

“successfully fight” with a kind of abstract image created by them. The fake perception

of the reality is intensifying. This paves the way for demonization or sacralization of

authorities. Therefore, the degree of trust in the forecasts of such experts always leaves

much to be desired.

Blatant pathos and outright lies have become a sign of public politics. Moreover, a

lot of achievements of authorities are exclusively rhetorical in nature and do not go

beyond the scope of political literature. Many figures (activists),whose professional

experience resides in successful rhetorical exercises, have built their political careers on

this. Political sophistry pushes the professional competence and political ethics to the

periphery.

The followers of personalism (N.A. Berdyaev, J. Lacroix, E. Munier and others)

pointed out that the personal qualities of a politician always draw more attention of the

public than their status positions. However, many current politicians have nothing but

their status positions. They show a critical deficiency of personal qualities (merits). This

Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 13 N

1 / enero-junio, 2023

is the diagnosis of the present. The public is unable to accurately establish a measure of

such dignity, and therefore accepts their incorrect assessments. The public trusts those

who should not be trusted, due to the potential public danger lurking in them.

The exact determination of the scale of such political personalities determines the

nature of trust in them. In general, few people are interested in shallow political

characters and cause a sarcastic attitude towards them, due to their complete

degradation. They turn up in the public environment and disappear without a trace,

leaving no trace of themselves. Many nations still argue and still cannot come to a

consensus about the role of their great politicians in the world history: the French about

Napoleon, the British about Cromwell, the Russians about Stalin, etc. Such assessments

allow them to form and refine their cultural and civilizational identity but what ideals the

authorities enjoy also determines the composition of their public support or distrust.

The level of trust in democratic institutions directly depends on the quality of

democratic values themselves, to what extend democracy is the norm both for society

and for political power itself.

4. Conclusion

We live in the age of plummeting trust in the political leaders and global political

leadership in particular. The world entered a period of global restructuring associated

with the crisis of the unipolar world and the initiation of multi-polarity principle. As a

result, carnival political traditions involving the crisis of political elites are intensifying on

the edge of this breakdown. The political carnival arises from the inadequate behavior

of the government officials who choose false aims and set utopian goals.

The political carnival clarifies the issue of the public’s political trust in the ruling elites.

The trust relations between the elite and the society are completely destroyed during

the carnival ruling. Due to this, the vacuum emerges in the socio-political world filled

with empty promises and demagogy of public sophistry.

Trust in politics is a variable indicating the level of cooperation or conflict in the

society and power structures. Therefore, it is necessary to study and take into account

both the level of trust/distrust and the speed and the vector of changes in these values

themselves. Here, the well-known folk wisdom “there is one step from love to hatred”

turns out to be relevant.

Acknowledgments

The article was written on the basis of the results of an investigation within the

framework of the state allocation of public service provision. No. 075-01287-22-02 dated

19.09.2022. (Agreement on the grant from the government No. 075-03-2022-201/2

dated 21 September, 2021)

Karabushchenko, Oskina, Kudryashova, Grigoriev y Rogov / Las raíces filosóficas de la dicotomía

confianza/desconfianza

Bibliographic references

• Dugin, E. Ya. (2018). “The power of trust and trust of power”. Vlast, 8, 60–66.

• Erasmus, D. (1936). The education of a Christian Prince. New York: Columbia

University Press, pp. 158–159.

• Garfinkel, H. (2009). “A conception of and experiments with “Trust” as a condition

of concerted stable actions”. Sociological Review, 8 (1), 3–25.

• Grigorenko, B. Yu. (2013). Trust in authority as a factor of socio-political youth’s

activity: Socio-cultural aspect. The dissertation for the degree of Candidate of

Sociological Sciences: 22.00.06 – Sociology of Culture and Spiritual Life, Moscow

Humanitarian University, Moscow.

• Hosmer, L. T. (1995). “Trust: The connecting link between organisational theory

and philosophical ethics”. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (2), 379-

403.

• Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.) (2004). Trust and distrust in

organizations: Dilemmas and approaches. The Russell Sage Foundation

Series on Trust. Vol. 7. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

• Kupreychenko, A. B., & Tabkharova, S. P. (2017). “Criteria of person’s trust and

distrust to other people”. Psychological Journal, 28 (2), 55-68.

• Kurenevsky, A. S. (2019). The trust of population in authority as a factor of state

development. In: Akhmetov, I. G. (Ed.) Research of young scientists:

Proceedings of V International Scientific Conference, Kazan, Russia,

December 2019 (pp. 61-63). Kazan: Young Scientist.

• Petruk, I. V. (2017). “Trust in government institution”. Scientific and

Methodological E-Journal “Concept”, 39, 846–850.

• Plato. (1990-1994). Collected Works: In 4 volumes. Loseva, A. F. et al. (Eds.).

Translated from Ancient Greek. Moscow: Publishing house “Mysl”, Vol. 1. pp. 860,

Vol. 2. pp. 528, Vol. 3 pp. 654, Vol. 4. pp. 830.

• Scott, J. C. (2005). Seeing like a state. How certain schemes to improve

the human condition have failed. Translated from English into Russian.

Moscow: Publishing house “University Book”, pp. 576.

• Stone, O., & Kuznick, P. (2014). The untold history of the United States.

Moscow: Publishing House KoLibri, Asbuka-Attikus, pp. 1400.