The Technology of Distrust

Abstract

Much has been written about social contract theory; the justification for political authority that claims that government arises out of an agreement among free individuals who surrender some degree of freedom in exchange for security provided by the state. Distinct versions of the social contract have been proposed by John Locke (Laslett, 1988), Thomas Hobbes (1982), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1968), and in more recent years, John Rawls (1999 [1971]) and David Gauthier (1977).² Rather than a specific set of negotiated conditions, social contract theory is generally considered a metaphor for the relationship between the individual and the state (Baldwin, 2003). The very existence of the state is morally justified by an agreement between the residents of a geographical area and the state, a theory sometimes called contractarianism. Modern versions of social contract theory assert that basic rights and liberties originate in mutually beneficial agreements made between members of society. Contract implies a binding agreement between parties raising undeniable issues of trust and suspicion.³ The agreement creates a relationship of rights and duties that inherently contain a measure of distrust that is addressed by legal remedies (West Legal Dictionary, 2004).

When President Bush laid out the potential threat that unconventional weapons posed in Saddam Hussein’s hands in his 2003 State of the Union address, he became tongue-tied at an inopportune moment.

The line read, ‘It would take one vial, one canister, one crate, slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.’ But Mr. Bush stumbled between the words ‘one’ and ‘vial.’ And when at the word vial, he pronounced the ‘v’ as if it were a ‘w.’

Yet in a new Republican commercial that borrows excerpts from that speech, Mr. Bush delivers that line as smoothly as any other in the address, without a pause between ‘one’ and ‘vial,’ and the v in ‘vial’ sounds strong and sure.

Republican officials acknowledged yesterday that the change was a product of technology. The line, they said, was digitally enhanced in editing ‘to ensure the best clarity’. (Rutenberg, 2003)¹