The original equally-based relation between science and culture becomes opinions on current science oscillate between an excesses of trust and a full I strongly believe that the "western civilization", based on democracy, the rule of law. All human beings, regardless of their cultural background, have a strong desire to develop relationships, and trust is crucial in this process. The connection between, culture and language has been noted as far back as” the classical, period . The relationship with our daily life differentiates between culture and civilization. give favorable deal to those whom they know and trust.
After appropriation and assimilation, they built on these discoveries, and developed a truly Islamic science that led worldwide knowledge in all scientific fields, including medicine. These activities were cosmopolitan, in that the participants were Arabs, Persians, Central Asians, Christians and Jews, and later included Indians and Turks.
The transfer of the knowledge of Islamic science to the West through various channels paved the way for the Renaissance, and for the scientific revolution in Europe. The public in the West is generally unaware of this important contribution to modern science and to the culture of the Middle Ages.
Islamic civilization is part of our own heritage, and the great Islamic scientists whose works were translated into Latin, such as Jabir ibn Hayan GeberIbn Sina Avicennaal-Razi RhazesIbn al-Haytham Adhazin and al-Khuwarizmi, are as important as any great European scientist.
The pictures in this article illustrate some of the remarkable products of Islamic science. The original is displayed in the National Museum of Qatar. Trust is one of the most pervasive - and perhaps for that reason least noticed - aspects of social life.
We need it in order to live at all. As the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann has remarked, 'A complete absence of trust would prevent [one] even getting up in the morning.
Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we assume when we go out of the front door that no gunman will be waiting in the street to shoot us. Until recently we took it for granted that, if we worked in the upper floors of a tall building, no one was deliberately going to fly an aircraft into it. Every time I use a lift I presume without checking that it has been properly constructed, repaired and maintained, that its cables are in good working order and that its electric supply system is safe.
Yet it is not a hundred per cent certain that that is the case. We simply have to make these assumptions, otherwise life would become impossible.
We do not have the time to check the professional competence of everyone on whom our health and even lives may depend. Trust is necessary in order to face the unknown, whether that unknown is another human being, or simply the future and its contingent events.
Science and culture
Seldom, if ever, can we obtain all the information we would need in order to take decisions in a completely rational manner. At a certain point in our 'intelligence-gathering' about the world we have to call a halt, say 'enough is enough' and take a decision based on what we know and the way we feel.
That decision will inevitably partly be based on trust. Trust is thus a way of reducing uncertainty. It lies somewhere between hope and confidence, and involves an element of semi-calculated risk-taking.
It forms a constitutive part of the way in which we conceive the world. We learn about the world first of all from our parents, and later through our intercourse with partners, friends, colleagues and people with whom we feel an affinity.
Since we cannot learn everything by personal experience, we take on trust much of what they tell us. At an even deeper level, their discourse, their ways of mentally constituting the world in which they live becomes a usually unnoticed but firmly embedded part of our own world-picture.
It has been argued that the scientific revolution only became possible thanks to the operation of a certain kind of trust. According to Steven Shapin, seventeenth-century English scientists, of whom he takes Robert Boyle as an exemplar, combined three sets of qualities, all needed for systematic but at the same time innovative scientific speculation: On their own, none of these sets of characteristics would have sufficed to engender scientific thinking: The English legal profession - model for many others in the modern world - originated in the Inns of Court and Chancery in London, where apprentice practitioners learned their trade from their seniors, and also ate their dinners together.
The latter practice was presumably intended to promote conviviality and mutual confidence, as well as the exchange and discussion of experience.
In the early sixteenth century those same Inns were also a kind of 'third university of England', where young gentlemen, including some not intending to study law, spent time improving themselves and forming social networks on the threshold of adult life. As the legal historian J. Baker has remarked Here the future statesmen, members of parliament, county magistrates and official classes joined together in work and play.
They learned the names which would matter to them, dined and prayed together, displayed their wealth or their talents whichever was more conspicuoustalked of law and much else, drank, diced and misbehaved. The experience coloured one's whole life: Since attendance was expensive, especially for those who lived outside London, its members had the comforting consciousness of belonging to an elite club.
That is one of the ways in which mutual trust is built up, and the motive is evidently still at work: At establishments such as Jonathan's or Garraways in Exchange Alley in the City, buyers and sellers of securities could be brought together and matched. With the help of the latest information and of various colleagues' estimates of it, those involved could better assess the price one should pay for particular goods and services, and the risk one was assuming in undertaking certain types of transaction.
The informal bonhomie of such establishments was crucial in generating the mutual confidence necessary for commercial and financial operations.
In reality it is not so. Trust needs to be created, but once it is established it can become both powerful and long-lasting. That is why some writers refer to its results as 'social capital', facilitating social development in the same way that financial and fixed capital, properly deployed, advances economic development.
As an example of how social capital operates, the sociologist James Coleman cited a family which moved from the suburbs of Detroit to those of Jerusalem, even though Israel is both poorer and more vulnerable than the USA.
The parents felt, however, that in Jerusalem they would be able to let their children have more freedom, going to school and shopping on their own, secure in the knowledge that if they got into any trouble other adults would intervene and help them out - something unlikely to happen in Detroit. Jerusalem was richer in social capital, the elementary background trust which enables us to get on with our lives without constantly taking precautions.
Where social capital is plentiful, opportunities are increased and transaction costs reduced. In most of our everyday transactions, we are not simply dealing with objective, unalterable conditions, but with people and their subjective response to us: Besides, trust is a self-generating and self-renewing resource.
Unlike most forms of capital, it does not get consumed by our drawing on deposits of it. On the contrary, trust is self-reinforcing. When we trust others, they usually - not always, of course - reciprocate, and the total stock of trust is thereby increased. By the same token, when we distrust others, they will almost certainly pay us back in the same key; the total stock of trust is diminished, and conflict, of whatever kind, becomes more likely.
The stock market in social capital plunges. Human beings tend to produce trust spontaneously, indeed to overproduce it, like a gland which secretes more of a certain chemical than is strictly necessary for the body. We 'secrete' trust sometimes when the circumstances do not warrant it. There are times when a spouse's infidelities become intolerable, even to a trusting partner, or a son's capacity for getting into debt undermines the patience of even the most doting parent.
But the point is that human beings commonly display trust well beyond the point when evidence starts to suggest that it is unwarranted. As Dr Johnson explained, 'It is happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust.
We all know that governments issue more orders and instructions than they could possibly enforce by calling on their powers of coercion, yet we mostly obey governments, pay our taxes to them and expect others to do likewise. This kind of acquiescence by inertia is essential for civilised life to continue, and usually we do not even notice that we are practising it. Yet it is by no means to be taken for granted. There are some societies in which banks are not trusted, taxes are not paid and governments are routinely disobeyed.
The point is to explain how this kind of routine minimal trust arises at all, how it is sustained and whether or not it generates peace or conflict. The issue of trust is crucial today. In the decade or more since the end of the cold war, most nations and a good many international organisations have been looking for ways to reconcile bitterly divided communities, to create and maintain peace.
In the Balkans, the former Soviet Union, Angola, Indonesia and elsewhere, international organisations have been seeking ways to promote social cohesion and the stability which encourages economic growth. Failure in this endeavour is far more dramatic and 'interesting' than success, and gets itself better reported in the media, so that the ordinary newspaper-reader or television-watcher gains the impression that promoting trust is hopeless, and we are certainly not well-informed on the ways in which success is sometimes achieved.
In advanced western societies trust is also a serious problem: Robert Putnam has suggested that since the s membership in associations of civil society has drastically declined, and that as a result the peaceful interaction of citizens necessary to democracy may be under threat. Francis Fukuyama has provided abundant evidence of growing distrust: In a way, that is understandable, since they write about the past. They do, however, have two great advantages when approaching questions of trust.
The first is that they do not examine economies, political structures or social welfare systems in isolation: Western economists working in the former Soviet bloc in the last decade are probably excellent at their subject, but they have not seemed able to place their economic counsel in a wider context, to see that measures which promote growth in one society will stifle it in another, or even endanger the social fabric.
An economy is part of a web of inter-relationships which make up society as a whole. Historians are better placed than most social scientists to study the entirety of that web. Secondly, historians locate their studies in the flow of time. A social problem is not like a chess problem, where the previous moves needed to reach the position on the board are irrelevant to the solution.
Societies are composed of people whose mentality and outlook have been constituted by their previous life experience and that of those around them. Their future actions will be strongly, perhaps decisively, influenced by that experience. It is vital to know what their past was and to understand how they reacted to it. In principle, then, historians could be useful in providing an insight into the different ways in which trust functions in different societies, and in which social cohesion is or is not sustained.
Yet actually, when I look at what most of my colleagues are doing, I have to admit that the generation of peace and stability is not high among their priorities. I believe that historians currently over-emphasise power. The history of societies is nowadays usually written in terms of their power relationships, and the assumption that power is the decisive factor, not only in politics, but in all aspects of social life has eaten deep into our routine accounts of social structure.
The salient aspects of social life are analysed through relationships of domination and submission - or periodic revolt - whether it be family, gender, class, culture, religion or ethnos which is at issue.
The thinker who currently underwrites the obsession with power is Michel Foucault. He sees power as being 'inscribed' into all our social relationships, all our discourses and practices.
He contends that a new form of power has arisen since the sixteenth century: It operates not just through coercion, but in many other much subtler and more insidious ways.Why good leaders make you feel safe - Simon Sinek
Its most successful coup was to take over the pastoral role of the church, replacing the function of ensuring salvation in the after-life by that of guaranteeing social welfare in this life. In order to fulfil that function, it collects information on individuals, counting them, classifying them, fixing them in card indices or computer files and archives, and also backing up the efforts of professional experts to educate them teacherscare for their bodies doctors and souls psychiatristsenmesh them in juridical relationships lawyerssupervise them policemen and if necessary punish them prison officers.
In a real sense the state confers on persons their individuality, for without the documents and records of the state their identity is insubstantial and they are helpless to do anything; it even moulds their consciousness, which it then controls, not in a direct manner, but through the multiple technologies available to those who occupy the higher positions in the political hierarchy.
It is not just the exercise of sovereignty, which is the prerogative of the state, not just a matter of commanding or laying down the law. Power is 'intentional and non-subjective': It is also multi-directional, 'operating from the top down and also from the bottom up. The technologies of confession and the associated concern with life, sex and health were initially applied by the bourgeoisie to itself. His notion of 'genealogy' is useful in explaining the origin and development of human feelings during historical time.
Yet there is something profoundly unsatisfactory about a concept of power which is so vague and all-embracing, which proceeds from no particular source or centre, and which is lacking in all subjectivity and direction. It is no accident that his master-image of power in the post-Enlightenment world, Bentham's Panopticon, was never put into practice. At times one feels that Foucault was deliberately not noticing what was under his nose: Many of his evasions and circumlocutions could be avoided if one postulates that much of what he explains through power would be better explained by a quite different human propensity: What we really need is a genealogy of trust.
Perhaps Diderot can help us make the leap from power to trust. He once said that 'The consent of men united in society is the foundation of power. That is where trust comes in. Foucault deliberately refrained from defining 'power', but let me all the same rashly attempt to define trust. It relates to both contingencies and persons, so here are two parallel definitions: A sociologist who worked on similar material to Foucault but from a different viewpoint was Norbert Elias.
He was interested in the way extensive areas of peace and civilisation were created in Europe from the late middle ages onwards. Essentially a historical sociologist, he traced the process by which the gradual centralisation of power in monarchical states changed human behaviour, so that the coarse and aggressive demeanour of medieval people, especially men, was tamed.
The Trust Gap in Organizations
People became more courteous and considerate of others, more calculating and rational in renouncing immediate gratification in favour of longer-term benefit. In the genteelly competitive milieu of the monarchical court - and also in the financial and commercial world, to which Elias seems to me not to pay enough attention - the people who almost always won out would be those who knew how to restrain their affects, to foresee the consequences of their actions and to behave prudently, reserving expressions of anger or aggression for the moment when they could have maximum positive effect.
The culture of the court then gradually spread to high society at large, to the professions, to the market place; it influenced anyone who wanted to get on in life and do well for him- or herself. The networks of human inter-dependence became more extensive and more complex, demanding of each individual a more generalised and impersonal bonhomie or tolerance, to cope with the repeated experience of dealing with strangers.
Even now, sad to say, in different parts of the world we are witnessing with growing alarm the aggressive claims of some cultures against others.
Why We Need a History of Trust | Reviews in History
In the long run, this situation can end in disastrous tensions and conflicts. At the very least it can make more difficult the situation of those ethnic and cultural minorities living in a majority cultural context which is different from their own and prone to hostile and racist ways of thinking and acting. In light of this, people of good will need to examine the basic ethical orientations which mark a particular community's cultural experience. Cultures, like the people who give rise to them, are marked by the "mystery of evil" at work in human history cf.
The authenticity of each human culture, the soundness of its underlying ethos, and hence the validity of its moral bearings, can be measured to an extent by its commitment to the human cause and by its capacity to promote human dignity at every level and in every circumstance.
The radicalization of identity which makes cultures resistant to any beneficial influence from outside is worrying enough; but no less perilous is the slavish conformity of cultures, or at least of key aspects of them, to cultural models deriving from the Western world. Detached from their Christians origins, these models are often inspired by an approach to life marked by secularism and practical atheism and by patterns of radical individualism.
The Trust Gap in Organizations - Strategic Finance
This is a phenomenon of vast proportions, sustained by powerful media campaigns and designed to propagate lifestyles, social and economic programmes and, in the last analysis, a comprehensive world-view which erodes from within other estimable cultures and civilizations.
Western cultural models are enticing and alluring because of their remarkable scientific and technical cast, but regrettably there is growing evidence of their deepening human, spiritual and moral impoverishment. The culture which produces such models is marked by the fatal attempt to secure the good of humanity by eliminating God, the Supreme Good.
Yet, as the Second Vatican Council warned, "without the Creator the creature comes to nothing! This was amply demonstrated by the tragic events of the twentieth century and is now apparent in the nihilism present in some prominent circles in the Western world. Dialogue between cultures Individuals come to maturity through receptive openness to others and through generous self-giving to them; so too do cultures.
Created by people and at the service of people, they have to be perfected through dialogue and communion, on the basis of the original and fundamental unity of the human family as it came from the hands of God who "made from one stock every nation of mankind" Acts In this perspective, dialogue between cultures — the theme of this World Day of Peace Message — emerges as an intrinsic demand of human nature itself, as well as of culture. It is dialogue which protects the distinctiveness of cultures as historical and creative expressions of the underlying unity of the human family, and which sustains understanding and communion between them.
The notion of communion, which has its source in Christian revelation and finds its sublime prototype in the Triune God cf. Dialogue leads to a recognition of diversity and opens the mind to the mutual acceptance and genuine collaboration demanded by the human family's basic vocation to unity.
As such, dialogue is a privileged means for building the civilization of love and peace that my revered predecessor Pope Paul VI indicated as the ideal to inspire cultural, social, political and economic life in our time. At the beginning of the Third Millennium, it is urgent that the path of dialogue be proposed once again to a world marked by excessive conflict and violence, a world at times discouraged and incapable of seeing signs of hope and peace.
Possibilities and risks of global communication Dialogue between cultures is especially needed today because of the impact of new communications technology on the lives of individuals and peoples. Ours is an era of global communication, which is shaping society along the lines of new cultural models which more or less break with past models. At least in principle, accurate and up-todate information is available to anyone in any part of the world. The free flow of images and speech on a global scale is transforming not only political and economic relations between peoples, but even our understanding of the world.
It opens up a range of hitherto unthinkable possibilities, but it also has certain negative and dangerous aspects. The fact that a few countries have a monopoly on these cultural "industries" and distribute their products to an ever growing public in every corner of the earth can be a powerful factor in undermining cultural distinctness.
These products include and transmit implicit value-systems and can therefore lead to a kind of dispossession and loss of cultural identity in those who receive them. The challenge of migration A style and culture of dialogue are especially important when it comes to the complex question of migration, which is an important social phenomenon of our time. The movement of large numbers of people from one part of the planet to another is often a terrible odyssey for those involved, and it brings with it the intermingling of traditions and customs, with notable repercussions both on the countries from which people come and on those in which they settle.
How migrants are welcomed by receiving countries and how well they become integrated in their new environment are also an indication of how much effective dialogue there is between the various cultures. The question of cultural integration is much debated these days, and it is not easy to specify in detail how best to guarantee, in a balanced and equitable way, the rights and duties of those who welcome and those who are welcomed.
Historically, migrations have occurred in all sorts of ways and with very different results. In the case of many civilizations, immigration has brought new growth and enrichment.
In other cases, the local people and immigrants have remained culturally separate but have shown that they are able to live together, respecting each other and accepting or tolerating the diversity of customs. Regrettably, situations still exist in which the difficulties involved in the encounter of different cultures have never been resolved, and the consequent tensions have become the cause of periodic outbreaks of conflict.
In such a complex issue there are no "magic" formulas; but still we must identify some basic ethical principles to serve as points of reference.
First of all, it is important to remember the principle that immigrants must always be treated with the respect due to the dignity of every human person. In the matter of controlling the influx of immigrants, the consideration which should rightly be given to the common good should not ignore this principle.
The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life. The cultural practices which immigrants bring with them should be respected and accepted, as long as they do not contravene either the universal ethical values inherent in the natural law or fundamental human rights. Respect for cultures and the "cultural profile" of different regions It is a much more difficult thing to determine the extent to which immigrants are entitled to public legal recognition of the particular customs of their culture, which may not be readily compatible with the customs of the majority of citizens.
The solution to this question, within a climate of genuine openness, calls for a realistic evaluation of the common good at any given time in history and in any given place and social context. Much depends upon whether people embrace a spirit of openness that, without yielding to indifferentism about values, can combine the concern for identity with the willingness to engage in dialogue. On the other hand, as I noted above, one cannot underestimate the capacity of the characteristic culture of a region to produce a balanced growth, especially in the delicate early stages of life, in those who belong to that culture from birth.
From this point of view, a reasonable way forward would be to ensure a certain "cultural equilibrium" in each region, by reference to the culture which has prevalently marked its development.
This equilibrium, even while welcoming minorities and respecting their basic rights, would allow the continued existence and development of a particular "cultural profile", by which I mean that basic heritage of language, traditions and values which are inextricably part of a nation's history and its national identity.
Clearly, though, the need to ensure an equilibrium in a region's cultural profile cannot be met by legislative measures alone, since these would prove ineffectual unless they were grounded in the ethos of the population. They would also be inevitably destined to change should a culture lose its ability to inspire a people and a region, becoming no more than a legacy preserved in museums or in artistic and literary monuments.
In effect, as long as a culture is truly alive, it need have no fear of being displaced. And no law could keep it alive if it were already dead in people's hearts. In the dialogue between cultures, no side can be prevented from proposing to the other the values in which it believes, as long as this is done in way that is respectful of people's freedom and conscience.
Dialogue between cultures, a privileged means for building the civilization of love, is based upon the recognition that there are values which are common to all cultures because they are rooted in the nature of the person.