面对大流行病的信任:寻求共同立场

Q3 Social Sciences Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Pub Date : 2021-06-29 DOI:10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8087
I. Tartakovskaya
{"title":"面对大流行病的信任:寻求共同立场","authors":"I. Tartakovskaya","doi":"10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the impact of the new coronavirus pandemic on interpersonal trust relationships, as well as trust in government institutions and official sources of information. The empirical base for the study is comprised of “diaries of professionals” — 34 diaries which were kept by social science experts from March 25 to June 10 2020 (“first wave”), and then from the 20th to the 30th of September 2020 (“second wave”) — belonging to sociologists, philosophers, philologists, anthropologists, political scientists, historians, orientalists. Thus, a collection of thick descriptions was collected, representing a mix between a personal diary and research reflective autoethnography. Based on the review of the scientific discussion on the problem of trust, a significant conclusion is made about the contradictions between “trust” itself, which implies the possibility of choice and pertains mainly to interpersonal relations, and ‘confidence’ in social and state institutions, which implies much less agency of the subject of trust. It is concluded that the epidemic has greatly exacerbated the problem of lack of trust, noted in the context of the spread of “post-truth” and “fake news” at a global level, but especially noticeable in Russia, where this deficit significantly undermines the very possibility of basic solidarity. The authors of the diaries, as researchers, note that “comfortable” forms of a trust prevail in their social milieu, which creates some uncertain illusion of security. People tend to trust those who help maintain their identity and relieve fear, as well as their familiar “trusted” sources. However, many of them sense the diminished reliability of these “pillars of trust” in a new unpredictable situation.","PeriodicalId":35261,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trust in the Face of a Pandemic: In Search for a Common Ground\",\"authors\":\"I. Tartakovskaya\",\"doi\":\"10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the impact of the new coronavirus pandemic on interpersonal trust relationships, as well as trust in government institutions and official sources of information. The empirical base for the study is comprised of “diaries of professionals” — 34 diaries which were kept by social science experts from March 25 to June 10 2020 (“first wave”), and then from the 20th to the 30th of September 2020 (“second wave”) — belonging to sociologists, philosophers, philologists, anthropologists, political scientists, historians, orientalists. Thus, a collection of thick descriptions was collected, representing a mix between a personal diary and research reflective autoethnography. Based on the review of the scientific discussion on the problem of trust, a significant conclusion is made about the contradictions between “trust” itself, which implies the possibility of choice and pertains mainly to interpersonal relations, and ‘confidence’ in social and state institutions, which implies much less agency of the subject of trust. It is concluded that the epidemic has greatly exacerbated the problem of lack of trust, noted in the context of the spread of “post-truth” and “fake news” at a global level, but especially noticeable in Russia, where this deficit significantly undermines the very possibility of basic solidarity. The authors of the diaries, as researchers, note that “comfortable” forms of a trust prevail in their social milieu, which creates some uncertain illusion of security. People tend to trust those who help maintain their identity and relieve fear, as well as their familiar “trusted” sources. However, many of them sense the diminished reliability of these “pillars of trust” in a new unpredictable situation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8087\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文研究了新型冠状病毒大流行对人际信任关系以及对政府机构和官方信息来源的信任的影响。该研究的经验基础由“专业人士日记”组成——社会科学专家在2020年3月25日至6月10日(“第一波”),然后在2020年9月20日至30日(““第二波”)保存的34本日记——属于社会学家、哲学家、文字学家、人类学家、政治学家、历史学家和东方学家。因此,收集了大量的描述,代表了个人日记和研究反思性民族志的混合。在回顾关于信任问题的科学讨论的基础上,我们得出了一个重要的结论,即“信任”本身与社会和国家机构中的“信任”之间的矛盾,前者暗示着选择的可能性,主要与人际关系有关,后者暗示着信任主体的代理作用要小得多。结论是,疫情极大地加剧了缺乏信任的问题,这一点在全球范围内“后真相”和“假新闻”的传播中得到了注意,但在俄罗斯尤为明显,这种赤字严重破坏了基本团结的可能性。作为研究人员,这些日记的作者指出,“舒适”的信任形式在他们的社会环境中盛行,这会产生一些不确定的安全错觉。人们倾向于信任那些帮助维护自己身份和缓解恐惧的人,以及他们熟悉的“可信任”的来源。然而,他们中的许多人感觉到,在一个新的不可预测的情况下,这些“信任支柱”的可靠性降低了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Trust in the Face of a Pandemic: In Search for a Common Ground
This article examines the impact of the new coronavirus pandemic on interpersonal trust relationships, as well as trust in government institutions and official sources of information. The empirical base for the study is comprised of “diaries of professionals” — 34 diaries which were kept by social science experts from March 25 to June 10 2020 (“first wave”), and then from the 20th to the 30th of September 2020 (“second wave”) — belonging to sociologists, philosophers, philologists, anthropologists, political scientists, historians, orientalists. Thus, a collection of thick descriptions was collected, representing a mix between a personal diary and research reflective autoethnography. Based on the review of the scientific discussion on the problem of trust, a significant conclusion is made about the contradictions between “trust” itself, which implies the possibility of choice and pertains mainly to interpersonal relations, and ‘confidence’ in social and state institutions, which implies much less agency of the subject of trust. It is concluded that the epidemic has greatly exacerbated the problem of lack of trust, noted in the context of the spread of “post-truth” and “fake news” at a global level, but especially noticeable in Russia, where this deficit significantly undermines the very possibility of basic solidarity. The authors of the diaries, as researchers, note that “comfortable” forms of a trust prevail in their social milieu, which creates some uncertain illusion of security. People tend to trust those who help maintain their identity and relieve fear, as well as their familiar “trusted” sources. However, many of them sense the diminished reliability of these “pillars of trust” in a new unpredictable situation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal
Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” publishes the articles on sociological disciplines. Interdisciplinary studies in sociology and related disciplines, such as social psychology, cultural studies, anthropology, ethnography, etc. — are also welcomed. The main emphasis is on the fundamental research in the field of theory, methodology and history of sociology. The regular rubric highlights the results of mass surveys and case studies. The rubric “Discussion”, which debated the controversial issues of sociological research, is regular as well. The journal publishes book reviews, and summaries, as well as lists of new books in Russian and English, which represent the main areas of interdisciplinary research in the social sciences. The journal aims to not only play samples of knowledge, considered regulatory and standards of internal expertise in the professional community, but also aims for opportunities to improve them. These rules, a tough selection and decision to print only a small portion of incoming materials allow “Sotsiologicheskij Zhurnal” contribute to improving the quality of sociological research. Submitted manuscripts should show a high integrity in problem setting, problem analysis and correspond to the journal’s thematic profile and its scientific priorities.
期刊最新文献
Theoretical Approaches Towards Studying Motivation for Surrogate Motherhood A Person that Feels, Values, and Studies Time. Professor Garold E. Zborovsky is 85 Years Old Is it Possible for a Society to Exist Without Development? Telemedicine in Russian Megacities: Problems and Prospects Batygin’s Lesson stuck with me on my Professional Path — Always Check Yourself to Make Sure your Conclusions Can Be Substantiated”. Interview Prepared by D.M. Rogozin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1