High trust society is as curious phrase. It obscures the fact that until recently nobody in Europe questioned the assumption of objective moral truth. Until the around the middle of the nineteenth century a thief might confess that he found theft convenient but he would not, except in the rarest of cases, deny that the eighth commandment was a universal and immutable truth.
And this was, of course, inseparable from that very unfashionable thing called Christendom.
To talk of high trust is to imply a certain state of mind. But this happy state of mind is but the precipitate of moral and intellectual effort inspired by a spiritual consciousness.
Christendom was both a cause and an effect of European high-trust society. Even before they became Christian, Europeans — and northwest Europeans in particular — were more individualistic, had weaker kinship ties, and tended to be single for at least part of adulthood. They thus conceived morality in universal terms, instead of the relativistic terms of kinship-based morality elsewhere. This individualistic morality was enforced much more by guilt than by shame, i.e., rule breaking would trigger emotional distress even if no else had witnessed the rule breaking.
Christianity was a good match for such a moral system. It could thus consolidate this system and implement it more effectively. Meanwhile, as the Christian faith moved further into Europe, it absorbed pre-existing beliefs that were much less present in the Middle East, i.e., the notion of original sin and the importance of regularly reducing one's burden of guilt through confession and absolution.
So I largely agree with you. But I would question your statement: "Until around the middle of the nineteenth century a thief might confess that he found theft convenient but he would not, except in the rarest of cases, deny that the eighth commandment was a universal and immutable truth." There was certainly a large minority who had only a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. For them, it was sufficient to "follow the rules" and perform the sacred rites for baptism, marriage, and death.
I'm not convinced that everyone would have been able to recite the ten commandments. I've actually met "strict Christians" who had only a sketchy understanding of the Bible.
As to Jamaica, would you say that it is Christian in the way that, for example, twelfth century France was? Probably not. What about the Christian community in Jamaica? Do they all agree that theft is sinful? Do most of them eschew theft? I don’t know but it seems likely that the answer in both cases is yes. Now, is the faith and influence of that Christian community sufficient to make of Jamaica a high trust society ? You say not. Non of this contradicts what I have so far said. To repeat: I said that high trust society as applied to what was formerly Christendom leaves out two essential factors : that in this case high trust is a kind of euphemism for moral and intellectual conviction and that the Christian Church was the source of that conviction. This is an empirical observation, not an a priori of the kind if Christianity then, by logical necessity, virtuous country.
Incidentally, what do you mean by high trust? That people behave according to a moral code, or something else?
As to Shinto, Grok disagrees with you, statistically speaking. In my own household, even though not now situated in Japan, ceremonial observance of the departed is practised, and as far as I know all our Japanese friends and family find this unexceptional.
We may be forgetting our points of agreement and focusing too much on minor points of disagreement.
I agree that the Church has been crucial in enforcing social rules and helping people internalize them. Over the longer term, it has also shaped the cultural environment and, ultimately, the gene pool.
No, Jamaica is not twelfth-century France. This is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully. A high-trust society is not simply a product of conscious belief. Behavior is also shaped by unconscious processes — impulse control, the capacity for empathy and guilt proneness, and predispositions of various sorts. It's possible to believe that theft is wrong and still regularly commit theft. Such people exist, and they're not uncommon.
I agree reason doesn’t mean ideology and of course I didn’t say that. I do say that trust is a psychological state and that there must be a cause. I further postulate, with some confidence, that in the area once known as Christendom the Church provided a moral and intellectual framework which encouraged virtuous behaviour. I don’t think this is controversial. So the phrase high trust society is inadequate. Perhaps intentionally so.
As for the Japanese, my family is half Japanese, so without going into it too much I’d say the situation is similar to that in the UK.That country is no longer Christian and hasn’t been for a long time. Nonetheless the historical influence persists even to the point where some people will say that Britain is a Christian country. What they mean is that some of the things they like are part of a Christian heritage. I’d say that is good deal closer to the truth than to say it’s a high trust society.
But what about the example of Jamaica? Christianity is still practised and believed in by the majority of the population. Yet it's not a high-trust society.
"Historical influence" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Most of the world's high-trust societies have been post-Christian (or post-Shinto) for several generations. At what point in time will you say that something else is at work?
Again, I'm not denying the role of Christianity. I just don't see it as playing the sole role or even the most dominant one.
My point concerns the phrase “high trust society”. Trust is a psychological condition: one trusts. But one does not trust without a reason. Taking Christendom as an example: the intellectual and moral qualities of the era led to certain norms of behaviour which in turn justified trust. I might be wrong about this, but if I am then the question remains: why in Christendom did people trust each other?
Naturally, there may be other reasons for trust ( in your example of Japan I would not underestimate the role of Buddhism and ancestor respect), but they are just that: reasons.
Shintoism and Buddhism no longer have much influence over the Japanese. For all practical purposes, the Japanese are post-religion.
Yes, there are reasons why high-trust societies exist. But "reason" doesn't necessarily mean "ideology," if that's what you mean. A high-trust society is not an outcome of conscious thought, at least not solely.
If people live in a social environment where kinship ties are weak, social rules will tend to be more universal and less kinship-oriented. The "community" will become defined in moralistic terms, and not so much in terms of kinship.
The advantage of a "moral community" is that it can potentially expand beyond the circle of immediate kin and close friends. Impersonal pro-sociality becomes much more possible.
The disadvantage is that the dividing line between trustworthy insiders and untrustworthy outsiders must be maintained. Otherwise, the whole moral system will break down and self-liquidate.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. An illiterate of, say, the thirteenth century, might not be able to recite the Ten Commandments, but he would have known that theft was wrong and he would have also known that the moral authority for this proposition was the Church. Those responsible for the intellectual and moral climate of the day were certain that truth was objective and immutable. If people trusted one another it was because they had good reason to do so.
I don't strongly disagree with you here. Certainly, Christianity has played a role in maintaining high-trust European societies. But it is possible to have a high-trust society without organized religion, such as in Japan. The converse is also possible.
Take Jamaica. In that country, 68% of the population identifies as Christian, mostly Protestant. Church attendance is high compared to North America and Europe. Sunday worship is a major weekly event, often lasting several hours. Religious broadcasting (radio, TV, street preaching) is widespread. Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter) are major national events. Moral and political discourse frequently references Christian values.
Yet Jamaicans have a “participation and trust deficit,” particularly in public institutions. Trust in politicians is low due to perceived corruption and close ties between political and business interests. Voter turnout is low (29.6% in 2024 local elections). Trust in the police is equally low, due to high crime rates, perceived inadequacy of law enforcement, and frequent use of states of emergency and special operations zones.
I think it would have been very difficult to have grown up in Christendom without understanding the prohibition against (for example) stealing, even if one was not instructed in the scriptures. Thou shalt not steal was common moral knowledge if for no other reason than that it was demonstrated in the public punishment of the guilty.
And if asked for the source of this moral stricture the ubiquitous presence of the Church would have supplied the answer.
As a literary example consider the two grave diggers in Hamlet. Two presumably illiterate men discussing propriety with reference to the Church.
I'm just going by personal experience. I've met strict Christians who could not recite the ten commandments and who had only a sketchy knowledge of the Bible. Such people are not uncommon.
"He found himself “living in one of Europe’s last remaining countries without proper hate speech laws, encountering racism and White Supremacists in broad daylight.”
Oooh, I am not a fan of hate speech laws, proper or not. Who decides what hate speech laws are proper? There are two kinds of speech: free and controlled.
Hate speech laws must be understood within their historic context. After 1945, many feared the prospect of another war in which Jews would again be victimized. This is why there was so much pressure to introduce hate speech laws throughout the West. The aim was not to protect immigrants from the Third World. It was to protect Jews.
Ironically, we're seeing a new upsurge of antisemitism, and these laws are utterly useless for their original purpose. They are now enforced by human rights commissions and other bodies whose members largely feel indifferent to Jews and see them as whites.
"The aim was not to protect immigrants from the Third World. It was to protect Jews."
Well, Jews, especially Zionist Jews, have inordinate power and control over many Western countries, including the United States.
"Ironically, we're seeing a new upsurge of antisemitism, and these laws are utterly useless for their original purpose."
I hope to hell you are not conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
"They are now enforced by human rights commissions and other bodies whose members largely feel indifferent to Jews and see them as whites."
Are you Jewish? I see Ashkenazi Jews as white, certainly a separate ethnicity, but white. But what the hell difference does that make? No, race or ethnicity should be threatened or physically harmed. Protests against the actions of a race or ethnicity do not constitute a threat.
I have always admired the mental acuity and accomplishments of some Ashkenazi Jews. I am not a fan of those who believe they are God's chosen people. The problem with hate speech laws is that they can be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances.
I'm not Jewish. It's possible to like Jews without being one.
I'm not conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism. I am personally opposed to the slaughter of civilians in Gaza (and increasingly in the West Bank). But there is a difference between legitimate protest against the current Israeli government and actions directed against Jews as Jews.
In early March, three synagogues in Toronto were targeted by gunfire. Pro-Palestinian protests in Toronto have also been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and not simply outside the Israeli consulate. Why? Isn't this an attempt to intimidate Jews as Jews?
There have also been reports of hostility toward Jews by members of the Toronto police force. Ironically, this situation has come about because of pressure to recruit new police officers from immigrant groups.
I hope you are not implying that is profound. I would never make a blanket statement about liking any race or ethnicity — I judge on character and ability.
"In early March, three synagogues in Toronto were targeted by gunfire."
Of course, that is wrong. Why would you mention that? Did you think I would condone that? Israel bombed a Synagogue in Tehran. Israel has destroyed Christian churches in Gaza and Lebanon. It is not uncommon for Jews in Israel to spit on and get physical with visiting Christian pilgrims. Look at some of the nasty, evil comments of Knesset members about Palestinians, Arabs, Iranians, and even Americans.
"Pro-Palestinian protests in Toronto have also been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and not simply outside the Israeli consulate. Why? Isn't this an attempt to intimidate Jews as Jews?"
My examples are from Canada because I know Canada better than other countries.
Yes, I equate some of the protests with intimidation. I asked my AI assistant for details and got this reply:
"Yes. Pro‑Palestinian protests have been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and the clearest documented examples come from Toronto, specifically the Bathurst Street & Sheppard Avenue area — the heart of one of the city’s largest Jewish communities.
Protesters marched past Darchei Noam Synagogue, the Toronto Heschel School, and the L’Chaim Seniors Residence, all located in a predominantly Jewish area. Some protesters attempted to enter residential side streets to reach Jewish homes more directly.
Demonstrations have occurred regularly in this neighborhood since late 2023. Police later introduced a ban on protests entering residential streets due to safety concerns and repeated incidents of protesters moving into Jewish areas. Even after the ban, protesters continued marching past synagogues, schools, and senior residences in the Jewish neighborhood."
I didn't imply you were antisemitic. I was simply defending my position.
"I asked my AI assistant for details and got this reply: "Yes. Pro‑Palestinian protests have been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and the clearest documented examples come from Toronto, specifically the Bathurst Street & Sheppard Avenue area — the heart of one of the city’s largest Jewish communities."
Gee, that is a surprise, since most AI development and control is in the hands of Zionist friendly Jews. Larry Ellison is one example.
I didn't question the veracity of the protests in Jewish neighborhoods, just your assertion that they constitute harassment.
High trust society is as curious phrase. It obscures the fact that until recently nobody in Europe questioned the assumption of objective moral truth. Until the around the middle of the nineteenth century a thief might confess that he found theft convenient but he would not, except in the rarest of cases, deny that the eighth commandment was a universal and immutable truth.
And this was, of course, inseparable from that very unfashionable thing called Christendom.
To talk of high trust is to imply a certain state of mind. But this happy state of mind is but the precipitate of moral and intellectual effort inspired by a spiritual consciousness.
Christendom was both a cause and an effect of European high-trust society. Even before they became Christian, Europeans — and northwest Europeans in particular — were more individualistic, had weaker kinship ties, and tended to be single for at least part of adulthood. They thus conceived morality in universal terms, instead of the relativistic terms of kinship-based morality elsewhere. This individualistic morality was enforced much more by guilt than by shame, i.e., rule breaking would trigger emotional distress even if no else had witnessed the rule breaking.
Christianity was a good match for such a moral system. It could thus consolidate this system and implement it more effectively. Meanwhile, as the Christian faith moved further into Europe, it absorbed pre-existing beliefs that were much less present in the Middle East, i.e., the notion of original sin and the importance of regularly reducing one's burden of guilt through confession and absolution.
So I largely agree with you. But I would question your statement: "Until around the middle of the nineteenth century a thief might confess that he found theft convenient but he would not, except in the rarest of cases, deny that the eighth commandment was a universal and immutable truth." There was certainly a large minority who had only a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. For them, it was sufficient to "follow the rules" and perform the sacred rites for baptism, marriage, and death.
I'm not convinced that everyone would have been able to recite the ten commandments. I've actually met "strict Christians" who had only a sketchy understanding of the Bible.
As to Jamaica, would you say that it is Christian in the way that, for example, twelfth century France was? Probably not. What about the Christian community in Jamaica? Do they all agree that theft is sinful? Do most of them eschew theft? I don’t know but it seems likely that the answer in both cases is yes. Now, is the faith and influence of that Christian community sufficient to make of Jamaica a high trust society ? You say not. Non of this contradicts what I have so far said. To repeat: I said that high trust society as applied to what was formerly Christendom leaves out two essential factors : that in this case high trust is a kind of euphemism for moral and intellectual conviction and that the Christian Church was the source of that conviction. This is an empirical observation, not an a priori of the kind if Christianity then, by logical necessity, virtuous country.
Incidentally, what do you mean by high trust? That people behave according to a moral code, or something else?
As to Shinto, Grok disagrees with you, statistically speaking. In my own household, even though not now situated in Japan, ceremonial observance of the departed is practised, and as far as I know all our Japanese friends and family find this unexceptional.
We may be forgetting our points of agreement and focusing too much on minor points of disagreement.
I agree that the Church has been crucial in enforcing social rules and helping people internalize them. Over the longer term, it has also shaped the cultural environment and, ultimately, the gene pool.
No, Jamaica is not twelfth-century France. This is the point I'm trying to make, perhaps unsuccessfully. A high-trust society is not simply a product of conscious belief. Behavior is also shaped by unconscious processes — impulse control, the capacity for empathy and guilt proneness, and predispositions of various sorts. It's possible to believe that theft is wrong and still regularly commit theft. Such people exist, and they're not uncommon.
Perhaps it's best for us to agree to disagree.
I agree.
I agree reason doesn’t mean ideology and of course I didn’t say that. I do say that trust is a psychological state and that there must be a cause. I further postulate, with some confidence, that in the area once known as Christendom the Church provided a moral and intellectual framework which encouraged virtuous behaviour. I don’t think this is controversial. So the phrase high trust society is inadequate. Perhaps intentionally so.
As for the Japanese, my family is half Japanese, so without going into it too much I’d say the situation is similar to that in the UK.That country is no longer Christian and hasn’t been for a long time. Nonetheless the historical influence persists even to the point where some people will say that Britain is a Christian country. What they mean is that some of the things they like are part of a Christian heritage. I’d say that is good deal closer to the truth than to say it’s a high trust society.
But what about the example of Jamaica? Christianity is still practised and believed in by the majority of the population. Yet it's not a high-trust society.
"Historical influence" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Most of the world's high-trust societies have been post-Christian (or post-Shinto) for several generations. At what point in time will you say that something else is at work?
Again, I'm not denying the role of Christianity. I just don't see it as playing the sole role or even the most dominant one.
My point concerns the phrase “high trust society”. Trust is a psychological condition: one trusts. But one does not trust without a reason. Taking Christendom as an example: the intellectual and moral qualities of the era led to certain norms of behaviour which in turn justified trust. I might be wrong about this, but if I am then the question remains: why in Christendom did people trust each other?
Naturally, there may be other reasons for trust ( in your example of Japan I would not underestimate the role of Buddhism and ancestor respect), but they are just that: reasons.
Shintoism and Buddhism no longer have much influence over the Japanese. For all practical purposes, the Japanese are post-religion.
Yes, there are reasons why high-trust societies exist. But "reason" doesn't necessarily mean "ideology," if that's what you mean. A high-trust society is not an outcome of conscious thought, at least not solely.
If people live in a social environment where kinship ties are weak, social rules will tend to be more universal and less kinship-oriented. The "community" will become defined in moralistic terms, and not so much in terms of kinship.
The advantage of a "moral community" is that it can potentially expand beyond the circle of immediate kin and close friends. Impersonal pro-sociality becomes much more possible.
The disadvantage is that the dividing line between trustworthy insiders and untrustworthy outsiders must be maintained. Otherwise, the whole moral system will break down and self-liquidate.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. An illiterate of, say, the thirteenth century, might not be able to recite the Ten Commandments, but he would have known that theft was wrong and he would have also known that the moral authority for this proposition was the Church. Those responsible for the intellectual and moral climate of the day were certain that truth was objective and immutable. If people trusted one another it was because they had good reason to do so.
I don't strongly disagree with you here. Certainly, Christianity has played a role in maintaining high-trust European societies. But it is possible to have a high-trust society without organized religion, such as in Japan. The converse is also possible.
Take Jamaica. In that country, 68% of the population identifies as Christian, mostly Protestant. Church attendance is high compared to North America and Europe. Sunday worship is a major weekly event, often lasting several hours. Religious broadcasting (radio, TV, street preaching) is widespread. Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter) are major national events. Moral and political discourse frequently references Christian values.
Yet Jamaicans have a “participation and trust deficit,” particularly in public institutions. Trust in politicians is low due to perceived corruption and close ties between political and business interests. Voter turnout is low (29.6% in 2024 local elections). Trust in the police is equally low, due to high crime rates, perceived inadequacy of law enforcement, and frequent use of states of emergency and special operations zones.
I think it would have been very difficult to have grown up in Christendom without understanding the prohibition against (for example) stealing, even if one was not instructed in the scriptures. Thou shalt not steal was common moral knowledge if for no other reason than that it was demonstrated in the public punishment of the guilty.
And if asked for the source of this moral stricture the ubiquitous presence of the Church would have supplied the answer.
As a literary example consider the two grave diggers in Hamlet. Two presumably illiterate men discussing propriety with reference to the Church.
I'm just going by personal experience. I've met strict Christians who could not recite the ten commandments and who had only a sketchy knowledge of the Bible. Such people are not uncommon.
Is this the same as your recent: "Are high-trust societies more xenophobic?" in Aporia Magazine?
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/are-high-trust-societies-more-xenophobic
It's about 90% the same. Aporia Magazine allows me to repost a month after initial publication.
"He found himself “living in one of Europe’s last remaining countries without proper hate speech laws, encountering racism and White Supremacists in broad daylight.”
Oooh, I am not a fan of hate speech laws, proper or not. Who decides what hate speech laws are proper? There are two kinds of speech: free and controlled.
Hate speech laws must be understood within their historic context. After 1945, many feared the prospect of another war in which Jews would again be victimized. This is why there was so much pressure to introduce hate speech laws throughout the West. The aim was not to protect immigrants from the Third World. It was to protect Jews.
Ironically, we're seeing a new upsurge of antisemitism, and these laws are utterly useless for their original purpose. They are now enforced by human rights commissions and other bodies whose members largely feel indifferent to Jews and see them as whites.
"The aim was not to protect immigrants from the Third World. It was to protect Jews."
Well, Jews, especially Zionist Jews, have inordinate power and control over many Western countries, including the United States.
"Ironically, we're seeing a new upsurge of antisemitism, and these laws are utterly useless for their original purpose."
I hope to hell you are not conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
"They are now enforced by human rights commissions and other bodies whose members largely feel indifferent to Jews and see them as whites."
Are you Jewish? I see Ashkenazi Jews as white, certainly a separate ethnicity, but white. But what the hell difference does that make? No, race or ethnicity should be threatened or physically harmed. Protests against the actions of a race or ethnicity do not constitute a threat.
I have always admired the mental acuity and accomplishments of some Ashkenazi Jews. I am not a fan of those who believe they are God's chosen people. The problem with hate speech laws is that they can be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances.
I'm not Jewish. It's possible to like Jews without being one.
I'm not conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism. I am personally opposed to the slaughter of civilians in Gaza (and increasingly in the West Bank). But there is a difference between legitimate protest against the current Israeli government and actions directed against Jews as Jews.
In early March, three synagogues in Toronto were targeted by gunfire. Pro-Palestinian protests in Toronto have also been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and not simply outside the Israeli consulate. Why? Isn't this an attempt to intimidate Jews as Jews?
There have also been reports of hostility toward Jews by members of the Toronto police force. Ironically, this situation has come about because of pressure to recruit new police officers from immigrant groups.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-antisemitism-inspection-9.7201151
"It's possible to like Jews without being one."
I hope you are not implying that is profound. I would never make a blanket statement about liking any race or ethnicity — I judge on character and ability.
"In early March, three synagogues in Toronto were targeted by gunfire."
Of course, that is wrong. Why would you mention that? Did you think I would condone that? Israel bombed a Synagogue in Tehran. Israel has destroyed Christian churches in Gaza and Lebanon. It is not uncommon for Jews in Israel to spit on and get physical with visiting Christian pilgrims. Look at some of the nasty, evil comments of Knesset members about Palestinians, Arabs, Iranians, and even Americans.
"Pro-Palestinian protests in Toronto have also been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and not simply outside the Israeli consulate. Why? Isn't this an attempt to intimidate Jews as Jews?"
Why do you equate protests with intimidation?
I don't live in Canada!
My examples are from Canada because I know Canada better than other countries.
Yes, I equate some of the protests with intimidation. I asked my AI assistant for details and got this reply:
"Yes. Pro‑Palestinian protests have been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and the clearest documented examples come from Toronto, specifically the Bathurst Street & Sheppard Avenue area — the heart of one of the city’s largest Jewish communities.
Protesters marched past Darchei Noam Synagogue, the Toronto Heschel School, and the L’Chaim Seniors Residence, all located in a predominantly Jewish area. Some protesters attempted to enter residential side streets to reach Jewish homes more directly.
Demonstrations have occurred regularly in this neighborhood since late 2023. Police later introduced a ban on protests entering residential streets due to safety concerns and repeated incidents of protesters moving into Jewish areas. Even after the ban, protesters continued marching past synagogues, schools, and senior residences in the Jewish neighborhood."
I didn't imply you were antisemitic. I was simply defending my position.
"I asked my AI assistant for details and got this reply: "Yes. Pro‑Palestinian protests have been held in Jewish neighborhoods, and the clearest documented examples come from Toronto, specifically the Bathurst Street & Sheppard Avenue area — the heart of one of the city’s largest Jewish communities."
Gee, that is a surprise, since most AI development and control is in the hands of Zionist friendly Jews. Larry Ellison is one example.
I didn't question the veracity of the protests in Jewish neighborhoods, just your assertion that they constitute harassment.