Also called social trust. A bit different in some ways. Mostly in perspective.
In the OP, sociologists look at government. Before government, it was society where NGOs--by one name or another--provided a common formal framework and shared values and norms provided a social framework.
More rights = more responsibilities, because each right is an obligation which, unless voluntarily given, is accompanied by a resentment. Historically, if there's a lack of social trust the only binding factor is government.
Then government has to go big or social trust leaves a lot of people on their own.
Now, the "wealthy" can handle it. Not mostly because they're wealthy but because they've networked, they have resources when necessary, but most of all they have social resources. People who they went to college with; coworkers in allied fields and friends of friends. If you're poor, you mostly have immediate family; as one writer put it whose work I read recently, if you're in a poor neighborhood you may act like your in solidarity but you know inside that the guy next to you is trying to find an advantage. So you don't trust him. This breaks down quickly and it's hard to re-establish.
The "wealthy" also tend to have better educations and know the system better. So if there's systemic support for them, they can find it and access it. If you're poor, you usually have less education and can't find your way around the system and use it to good advantage.
And yet "STFU" is often the mantra that you hear because, well, we have our rights and you have responsibilities, and if you want a democracy then you have to do what I want--no, what I demand. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016125804
And we wonder where social trust goes. It managed to make it through the '50s and into the '60s. Then ...
= new reply since forum marked as read
