So this turned into a some kinda bloggy post thing. I can't vouch for any the ideas in here because I'm hopped up on caffeine and ibuprofen.
Garfinkel's classic "trust" paper which discusses how sociologists and practically engage trust as something observable and reportable. It is fundamentally a discussion about method, and how formal analytic/theory, cannot make render visible issues of trust. I think this speaks directly to Alan's point that humanities have no methods for engaging trust: Garfinkel, H. (1963), 'A Conception of, and Experiments with 'Trust' as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions', in Harvey, O. J. (ed), Motivation and Social Interaction, New York: Ronald Press, 187-238.
Garfinkel's notion of trust is situated more broadly(and in ways more readable than Garinke's tortured prose, though, not by much) in the article cited below, although this might be a bit too much sociology-ethnomethodology insider-baseball: Watson, Rod. "Constitutive practices and Garfinkel’s notion of trust: Revisited." Journal of Classical Sociology 9.4 (2009): 475-499.
I like this quote:
Garfinkel (2008[1952]) would of course argue that there can be no information in the first place without trust. Some practices – constitutive practices – require as a necessary background condition that ego trust not only alter, but all participants in the practice in question. Trust in this sense does not mean to trust the whole person in all of their aspects, but, rather, to trust only that they are committed to this practice, competent to perform it, and that they trust this of you. Not to trust in this way is to fail to participate (or have information) altogether.
The challenge is this is all "micro" sociology (tho the micro-macro split is somewhat illusory see Latour1) Karl Weick took up these ideas and made them somewhat organizational in: Weick, Karl E. Sensemaking in organizations. Vol. 3. Sage, 1995. If/How this might work for the humanities is an open question.
The grand challenge is how can we restore the public's trust in the humanities (and sciences, and academy writ large)? This is one way of framing Latour's new project, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence albiet at a very high level. The best description of hte project I've seen is in this interview
What I think he means by "ethnography of modernity:"
"we have never actually ‘met’ modernity; the ‘first contact’ has still not occurred. Because the Moderns have been so busy expanding, they never met themselves. They never had the chance to figure out what they were up to. So no, on the contrary, my somewhat fanciful idea is to say that now is the first time the Moderns have the time to do their own anthropology"
Basically, I'd argue sociology, and the social studies of science, has methods of inquiry that can surface issues of trust, but the humanities need to trust these disciplines more. For a fantastic discussion about humanities & sciences see Mario Biagioli's Postdisciplinary Liaisons: Science Studies and the Humanities. This discussion of the relationship b/w sciences and humanities is far superior to that thing Steven Pinker wrote the other day.
I just saw this and I haven't read it but anything by Knorr-Cetina must be good: Knorr-Cetina, Karin. The micro-sociological challenge of macro-sociology: towards a reconstruction of social theory and methodology. Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz, 2009.
OK, I'm going to stop writing now.
Footnotes
-
A nice article about the micro-macro distinction by Latour: Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. "Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so." Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies (1981): 277-303. ↩