‘Back to the Rough Ground!’ A Grammatical Approach to Trust and International Relations

Abstract

This paper asks what it is that we are doing when we talk about trust in international politics. It begins by reviewing the recent and growing body of research on trust and International Relations (IR), locating this more nascent collection of literature within a wider, established body of social science work on trust in disciplines such as psychology, political science, business and management studies. It claims that the existing literature is based on particular practices of representation that unquestioningly attempt to find the correct meaning for trust and that this representational account of meaning limits the form of the research, carrying assumptions about meaning that lead to several semantic and methodological problems. The paper challenges this way of understanding through the use of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and proposes an alternative, grammatical approach to trust and IR based on ‗meaning as use'. To illustrate this, the paper then conducts a grammatical investigation of the use of trust regarding nuclear arms control with the Soviet Union during the second term of the Reagan presidency. This challenges the familiar narrative of the role of trust at this time by going back to the ‗rough ground' of President Reagan's speech on trust and nuclear weapons.

Assessment of the Trust Crisis between Upstream and Downstream States of the Helmand River Basin (1973–2022): A Half-Century of Optimism or Cynicism?

“…Similarly, Coleman argues that a riparian state will trust the other riparian only if the probability of benefit minus the probability of loss is positive (gain – loss = positive outcome). In contrast, Wheeler and Considine perceive trust as a mix of feelings (emotions) and rational thinking.…”

Toward a relational approach in global climate governance: Exploring the role of trust

“…The questions generated through this approach focus attention on how trust flows in relationships: who are the trust ers (those doing the acts of trusting), who are the trust ees (those actors seeking and/or requiring trust to act or fulfill a duty), and what forms do their relationships take? The answer to such questions depend, critically, on what work trust is doing (Considine, 2015). For example, if trust helps facilitate cooperation to develop international institutions for climate action, then the trust dynamics between governance actors engaged in global policy‐making arenas, for example, nation‐states, NGOs, private sectors, knowledge holders, etc., matters.…”