IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amsocr/v89y2024i5p937-969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“It’s a Battle You Can’t Win†: Domination and Class Differences in Real-World Trust among Black Families

Author

Listed:
  • Karolyn Tyson

Abstract

How does class affect one’s propensity to trust? Previous research finds higher-status actors express less trust than lower-status actors in interpersonal and institutional contexts. Scholars explain this finding as an outcome of structural dependence—when people have few alternative means for accessing valuable resources. In contrast, I find dependence inadequate to explain the relationship I observe between class and institutional trust among black families whose children were recommended for special education and other remedial program placement in an affluent, predominantly white school district. Drawing on retrospective interviews from a community ethnography, findings show that real-world trust decision processes also involve domination. Empirical studies of trust have overlooked the ways trustees—those being given trust—exercise power to achieve deference in trust exchanges, and how trustors—those placing trust in others—deploy their power to withstand trustees’ influence. I argue that trust might best be conceptualized as a two-part decision process, because class and other status resources affect trustors’ freedom to choose at two key junctures: (1) in weighing options and costs of trust errors, and (2) in communicating distrust in face-to-face interactions, where the potential for domination is high. Focusing on intersecting systems of power in authentic trust exchanges, this study shows how middle-class black trustors use symbolic resources to “go up against†the institutional power of educational experts and refuse placement, whereas working-class trustors consent to placement.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolyn Tyson, 2024. "“It’s a Battle You Can’t Win†: Domination and Class Differences in Real-World Trust among Black Families," American Sociological Review, , vol. 89(5), pages 937-969, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:amsocr:v:89:y:2024:i:5:p:937-969
    DOI: 10.1177/00031224241278355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00031224241278355
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00031224241278355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:amsocr:v:89:y:2024:i:5:p:937-969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.