Reference: Dores, A. (2016). Trust an the face. In A. Freitas-Magalhães (Ed.), Emotional expression: The brain and the face (vol. 8, pp. 205-231). Porto: FEELab Science Books.
3 Trust and the Face ANTÓNIO PEDRO DORES
Abstract António Damásio's work is an appeal for scientific collaboration between the neurosciences and the social sciences. It is, at the same time, a recognition of the epistemic limitations to open free-transit between studies until now still closed in Cartesian prejudices, that separate the macro of the micro, the tissue of the cell, the societies of the individuals. As if the different levels of reality, for example justice and economics, were worlds apart or parallels that never meet. Keywords: Trust, face, emotion, justice, culture.
The face, face studies, are strategically positioned, for empirical reasons, in a shaded area of the current scientific paradigm that intends to senselessly separate humanity from nature, within which it evolved as a species. The face is the instrument of expression and incorporation more visible and more easily observable
with the naked eye. Subject to internal influences such as emotions and feelings, or needs and expectations, and external, social and environmental influences, or family and economic influences. The study of the face is, therefore, a good field of investigation to open the social sciences to new cognitive adventures and to overcome the impasse in which they are found (Mouzelis 1995). For sociology, in particular, it is an opportunity to look in bodies, in human cells, in the struggle for survival that makes the evolution of life on Earth, the material sources of social energy, and to overcome the quarrels and false conciliations among the partisans of To study individual levels, institutional levels and reified levels, called social macro, as if they were not part of the same whole. Medicine uses the notion of homeostasis to refer to an immaterial function that represents the energy that connects the different parts of the bodies of the higher animals into a functional whole. Finance uses the notion of trust for the same purpose. The judicial system is one of the institutional centers of production of trust in society and in the individuals who constitute it. Trust is a feeling that eventually (I leave this to the experts), can be identified on the face. At least there are faces that arouse trust and others that do not. It is intuitions and prejudices to work. And from the scientific point of view, is there anything to be said about it? In this work we explore this possibility. We seek to locate the importance of trust for society and for feelings of justice, including the place of punitive processes in maintaining personal and social trust. In a second moment we present a definition of confidence capable of working under the above conditions. The third part discusses the instability of trust and the perverse and / or paradoxical uses of trust by individuals and institutions, including judicial institutions. That war and punishment are useful examples. Finally it is shown that there is knowledge about how neuronal systems work with respect to judicial functions. Knowledge that must be explored and deepened.
Cement holistic social Restorative justice uses the face distinctly from the justice of the courts. In the first case, the faces of victims and defendants are presented with equal dignity to that of any other face. The presumption of innocence is not a question. What is wanted is to reach a new situation of trust between all people involved, directly and indirectly. Mediation, as can be done in war situations, helps to disarm the faces fixed in tense positions. In court, the presumption of innocence is declared counterfactually. The announcement of an accused person is tantamount to withdrawing his trust. Even when she is clear of judgment, bad reputation can not escape. That is, the defendant's face is a radically unequal face, susceptible to widespread mistrust. Before which he will have the opportunity or not to react. But the actual possibilities of repairing damage are impaired at departure. As they say, no accused admits his guilt. However, it is also true that in cases where they may be right, they will have to spy on it. Criminal justice itself creates a situation unrelated to the possibility of establishing rationally relations of trust between society and the defendants. What sufferers of jurists in general, but especially the lawyers, regarded as unreliable professions. The present study of expressions of trust continues the development of the sociological conception of the face as a social and biological form normatively expressive of the meeting of undulatory processes of incorporation and embodiment (Dores 2013), reflecting the recursion that characterizes the human species (Corballis 2011) and Individual experience resulting from personal and social orientation and use skills (Dores 2016). The face expresses in a particularly intense way the extraordinary instability of life in general and of human life in particular. At the same time it is part of the efforts of homeostatic composition of production of the collaborations necessary to the resilience of life, at the biological, social and doctrinal levels. The bad dispositions, the sympathies, the determination, for example, are expressed and reinforced in the faces of the people, whom they can reach as a diffusion effect, creating social waves (Alberoni, 1989; Collins 2005).
One of the ways to understand the special instability of the human species, arising from our exposure to extinction, like any other way of life, and its special need to establish social relations at the same time dense and broadened to increase resilience to entropy, is to think The species-operated approach to instability as an evolutionary advantage. Adaptation to the environment in humans is done through the manipulation of the environment by collective intelligence, such as beaver, ants or bees. In our case, however, collective intelligence has acquired a particular autonomy, differentiating itself in a virtual world (technologically supported by writing, books, telephones and televisions, computers, the internet) that allows plans to be transformed into organizations, Based on special characteristics of the species, among which there is the recognition of the faces. The possibility and necessity of people to develop recursive processes, that is, to build a past and a future that complete and subjugate the present in the form of identities and projects, needs and expectations, evolved through the creation of socially elaborate forms of orientation, both geographical As doctrinal, that have transformed not only the species but also the planet. Identities and projects whose elaboration calls for a cement (trust and punishment) materialized in the multiplication of the potentialities of bodies, including through technological prosthetics. Cement established through relationships and social institutions. For some, societies are forms of coercion exercised from top to bottom, from institutions. For others, they are webs of inter-individual actions capable of building and destroying institutions. In the concept used here, society is the need / ability of each person to organize to survive and self-recognize within the distinction between what are the sources of their recursively projected identity and what is foreign to them. The agency, contrary to what is generally presumed in social theory, is above all irrational and institutions, systems, are an integral part of each person, are closely inscribed in their identities and life plans. The calculations, which are actually made, are dependent on the existence of security conditions to survive the existential instability, especially in the face of the risks of social exclusion and, therefore, the ever threatening loss of identity (losing face) and possibility of sustaining projects (meaning) of life.
The face is precisely an instrument of control and expression of social identities and of strangeness, repugnance, antisocial. A way of communicating and attuning to the environment and of even separating the human environment from the environment. To the extent that the first is pacified (Elias 1990) and the second is represented as a state of spontaneous war, as in Hobbes. Thus justifying the state of global war against nature and the excluded or enemies, to the extent that it can make the environment hostile to the existence of humans (Diamond 2008). Paradoxically, the human reaction to existential instability has therefore generated, and there are those who have already generated definite, the anticipated conditions of the so feared extinction of the species. Trust plays a central role in social life. The lack of social trust, which can be measured by excessive punishments (Wacquant ,2000; Christie 2000) and social inequalities (Wilkinson, & Pickett, 2009), irrationally forces mankind to focus on their navel, against nature and against Humans that serve as a mirror for such irrationality. Referring to the struggle for survival of the species for the traps currently well identified by science. But not by societies or by the ruling classes. The focus on internal tensions, in social and urban relations, distracts us from the tensions of humanity with nature, as if the latter were a nuisance that is enough to repudiate to avoid more problems. According to the same doctrine applied by criminal-criminal courts. When the adopted God in the West said, "Grow and multiply," it was long before population growth reached the proportions of the last decades. At that time, the environment was still hostile to people. Or, put another way, technology was not effective enough to achieve the productivity and comfort that are now possible. The current challenge is to slow down the closure of humanity in itself and recognize the obvious: we are part of nature and it is not our enemy. Violent, punitive, moralistic, anti-nature and anti-civil society reactions are the same kind of self-mutilation practices that some people practice in their imbalance. They can advantageously be replaced by appeasing, inspiring, rational interventions. From a cognitive point of view, the advantage of moving to articulate - rather than separate - social science and the natural sciences is to overcome the trap that has
led us repeatedly to perverse effects. Namely, desertification, eventually, of the whole planet, stems from the competitive, cognitive and identitary tension against the generalized one. It is necessary to reorient the impetus of collective intelligence to other purposes than to distance ourselves from nature and blame the victims (such as immigrants, genocide societies, the poor, etc.) for the difficulties of all. For this political program, the contribution of science will be providential. The study of the face, interface between the natural and social sciences and doctrines, between biology, manipulation of states of mind (Dores, 2010) and reassessment of priorities, focusing on harmonization with nature, including the reduction of poverty, Punishments and inequalities, will be one of the fields of intervention of new scientific perspectives for a close epistemic cooperation, replacing the current hyperspecialization. Of which are examples to the recent neuroeconomia and neuro social science. Finally we report on bridges that are already established between our neuronal functioning and judicial functions, pointing to a vast field of research and application to develop. The trust Trust has two aspects: mutual trust and trust in systems; The critical recognition of the face (and body) of others and the assumption of the "acceptable risk" in the use of technologies resulting from collective production (Giddens 1992: 22-28), machines to defend us from nature. Attacking it. Ways to isolate ourselves from the environment, for our convenience. With population growth and information technology, now the internet, face-to-face social work - originally unique, using oral narratives and memory - has become secondary, especially in organized relationships. Punishment has been gaining ground for restorative justice, precisely as personal trust has been replaced by bureaucratic, cold, legal, predetermined against nature and the excluded. The terrible exhibitionist punishments characteristic of the pre-modern warmongering societies have been replaced by the institutional use of masses of people subjugated or persecuted, who are prison populations and their families.
Contrary to what Giddens says, trust is not stable. It can give rise to a sense of relative stability, which is a different thing. For example, compared to the time fifty years ago when children were walking to school and without company other than their peers, the children who arrive by car today at the door of the school are more confident of urbanity of passersby? The phrase that the famous English author uses to fix the alleged privilege of stability in social life also serves to deny it: "Trust is usually a much more continuous state" than individuals imagine to "consciously consider alternative lines of action "(op.cit.:25, emphasis added to the original). Giddens puts himself in the position of the manager who does not take the risks of the workers and therefore can face the life of each in abstract as a risk rate. Workers - like people whose lives are at risk (Caparrós 2014) - are in practice prevented from calculating. Like young people, they make their lives as if the risks do not exist. As if they were invulnerable. Because they know that the awareness of risks, for those who can not avoid them completely, tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unconsciousness is the way to alleviate the tension of existential instability. The way to be safe on a scaffold hundreds of feet above the ground. This is made clear by the social struggles surrounding the rules of professional risk minimization. Workers are so confident of the "acceptable risks" that they resist respecting safety rules at work. For them they are just ways of controlling that they, as people, are oblivious. Trust is therefore built on a strong dose of unconsciousness. The priority of attention is invested to manage the tensions of the social order itself, itself not very rational, as we have seen. To the detriment of the rationalization of relations of harmonization with nature, which all managers and workers agree to exploit to the fullest. Giddens's message to managers who may be his readers includes the recognition that they see social trust as something that comes from spaces, but is permanently discontinuing. The sociologist tries to calm them down and says, for that purpose, that they should not worry so much about the subject. The argument is this: it seems to you, managers, that trust is unstable. But it is an effect of your profession to "consciously consider alternative lines of action". Most people, however, do not have
that job. And, therefore, one simply allows oneself to follow the habits, resisting to change the routines, without considering alternatives. That is, even if there are errors of management or social orientation, the populations maintain their confidence intact, although here and there critically mark, verbal or facial, the errors that detect. Consciousness, so that naturally unstable trust can be maintained, separates into two: individual consciousness (which can verbalize and point out errors and defects) dependent on one's social relations and position; Collective conscience, team spirit, body spirit, love of sweater, professional spirit, etc., which works with relative indifference to individual consciousness. In modernity, it is intimately dependent on identities and projects generally related to the professions of each one. The organization of social levels and organizational levels reinforces and maintains the distinction between the individual world, the target of reflexivity, and the social world, presented as immutable. Unrealistic immutability but founded on the will and need for trust on the part of those who anchor their existence (identity and projects) in the complex society in which it participates. Managers, like the workers, in their official functions, as well as the politicians, take on the role of a good conscience, that is, of disparaging or at least publicly retracting criticisms of the activities for which they are responsible. Otherwise irregularities such as corruption, for example, would be more difficult to be practiced to the extent they are at present. People are not in a position to report without risking their own professional or even personal survival (Lusa, 2013). The state of trust is thus socially created as an irrational response to the existential instability to which young people, workers and managers are all subject, knowing, but not wanting to know at the same time, that we are living in a hostile world. Another example of irrationality on the basis of trust lies in the use of the automobile as a means of transport, in contrast to the airplane. The number of road transport victims is not comparable with the victims of air transport. But the feeling is reversed relative to the real risks, depending on what is customary. In political terms, given the separation between the political class and its constituents, the latter leave the former instability "consciously considered alternative lines of action." Voters simply complain about the abuses and mistakes of those
responsible. This oligarchic democracy, "generally" stable, is for some the central mechanism of current instability. The ability to calculate requires, in addition to the instruments, to be in a social position in which such calculations make sense. In one study on literacy (Benavente & Rosa 1996), one of the conclusions was precisely the loss of skills acquired in schools by many people who are working and do not use such basic skills in their daily work. Reflexivity is effectively exercised (Archer, 2003) but is largely an illusion (Bourdieu, 2001; Desmurget, 2012). For if individualization is a civilizational achievement (Foucault, 2004), individualized reflexivity is a very visible limitation in situations of precariousness of work or of social exclusion. The lack of confidence in the management system of collective intelligence, particularly in political systems, is expressed in xenophobic movements, resulting from irrational reactions of fear and shame. The excluded, unemployed, immigrants, targets of deep identity punishment for not having the social resources to organize their projects of life, are accused of being guilty of the situations of which they are the main or at least equally victims. Because they are lazy or have not acquired the necessary professional skills either because they are old or because they have spent more money than they have won, there are many arguments to legitimize the merit of the social exclusion of those excluded. The stigmatization of part of the humanity victim of competition, in practice expelling it from the right to benefit from human rights and the right to dignity theoretically formally recognized, builds social trust under threat. The one of anyone can fall into this situation, if it does not follow the general purposes of society. By regularly provoking emotional outbursts and the corresponding tumults. In some cases to accommodate downward social mobility, in other cases to transform social systems. The importance of xenophobia in social organization stems from the capacity of this sense of distrust to isolate minorities, in fact the less integrated and more fragile people, as scapegoats of the discord between official discourses, social trust, social life, and instability of expectations Individual, abandoned to the fate of social competition. To prevent individuals from openly declaring their distrust of official
trust, endangering social harmony, the opportunity to shed social stigmata away and away, for example against outsiders, serves the most unstable people. They vote for parties and characters that reinforce the threats of punishments that are expected to have magical effects. If it is necessary to punish with unemployment and the lack of accommodation, first that are the foreigners or the criminals or the others. It was Brecht who said that first they came to get the gypsies, and because I'm not a gypsy I did nothing ... Confidence produced face-to-face has never ceased to be important, not only at an individual level but also at work in institutions. The current seduction produced by internet-connected electronic gadgets reduces reliable production opportunities of this kind. And it increases confidence in systems, especially electronics, in what is delivered to our enjoyment by a society that we do not know how it works. And that is why we are strange. The multiplication of the production of (social) levels of the multiplication of possible processes of institutionalization in conditions of modernity, given the great production of surpluses, has raised new layers of the population to social positions from which confidence in systems and calculations Can apparently stabilize. This position of social superiority serves as a model for workers, especially when they have been treated as citizens. But only as long as they are able to exercise this mimicry. The so-called bourgeoisie of the working class. The current conjuncture of political, economic and social recomposition, which degrades workers' living conditions, shows the true nature of trust: unstable and historical. Depending on the ability of dominant ideologies to be compatible with people's lives. Confidence that is played in each face-to-face meeting, when people manifest themselves or not, confident in their future and in institutions. For example, the crisis has significantly increased political anecdotal, which is the way to use the virtual world acidically and relieve the tensions that, if taken seriously, would turn personal instabilities into social instability. Looking for lost confidence
Giving face, saving face, yielding and sustaining life projects, shows us history, continues the primary way of negotiating and stabilizing people and societies by establishing relationships of trust. Of alliances. Despite the increased instability provoked by processes such as urbanization, industrialization, colonialism, the installation of infrastructures, etc., the social tensions created have admitted periods and spaces of social peace (Elias 1990), but broken by increasing violence (Malešević 2010: 97-98). How can social theory at the same time explain states of peace and war? How can it explain both trust and distrust in modern systems and face-to-face relationships? It will not be able to do so by admitting epistemic privileges to states of equilibrium, which in reality are effortlessly achieved and structurally unstable rarities (Prigogine, 1996). The study of the face in social sciences has been avoided precisely because of its complexity, due to the instability of facial expressions. Instability is tending to be minimized, as we have seen in Giddens. Tendency that corresponds to the spontaneous concerns of people, who prefer to go to the side of the problems to have to face them and thus take risks that only courage will take for you. From the methodological point of view, to intimately relate ecology-biology, social sciences and doctrinal knowledge, to understand what is going on in the face will help to account for complexity and instability. The isolation of the sciences from one another does not help to establish a method. Its interrelationship, as in the disciplines of neuroeconomics and social neurosciences, is an important contribution. Not only for the study of the face, but also to advance the knowledge about trust (and punishments) as feeling. Trust, of course, resorts to the emerging emotions of human bodies. As a feeling, as a higher and weighted level of experience regarding emotions, trust can resist the emotions of fear or shame, which are the underlying social emotions (Dores 2011). In the dizziness of reaching adulthood or earning bread to support the family or making the right business decision, fear and shame transmute into confidence. For experience shows how a positive (or negative) state of mind predisposes other people and society to respond in the same currency. This explains the shameful poverty as well as the submissive hunger, that is, the silent suffering of the lack of respect for human rights
(waste of food or use of food for animals, when almost a third of humanity does not know if tomorrow will have what to eat). Being positive, when you do not have the resources to get out of the situation, is to resist, hoping to survive. Paying with personal and social weakening, waiting for better days. That they will come or not. There are many who wait for solidarity and empathy, who are spontaneous in people. Although they are also inhibited by the circumstances of life, in particular by forms of maintaining social trust punitive and based on social inequalities. Being negative, especially in situations of frailty and high risk, results in hopelessness, isolation, premature death. The need to feel confident, or at least to simulate, confidence is a way to react directly to existential instability. For what the control of the face, of the presentation to others, in the performance of recognizable social roles, is central. It has recently been discovered that the system of recognition of human faces by people is an autonomous system centered in the brain. Normal people have very varied abilities to observe faces. Some are able to recognize people even when their appearance varies greatly, for example with different or bearded hair or after many years, children and old. There are other people who can not recognize the person they just talked to, just having lost eye contact for a moment. This discovery reveals how humans, to distinguish each other's faces, have developed a special modeling recognition system, whose reliability varies from being human to being human. It is a sensitive system that we can call social, because it is only at this level that it has effects. And it may happen to be missing or not functioning. It is not the only human modeling nervous system that characterizes people's typical sociability. The center of language, located on the left side of the brain, is another nervous module that can work better or worse, does not function, and creates the sociability conditions typical of humanity. There are also holistic systems of sociability, such as that of mirror cells scattered throughout the body in much larger quantities than other primates, and which unconsciously allows and forces people to spoil others when they observe them or after observing them.
People who do not recognize faces do not signal the continuity of the social relationship with those who present them with a face they should know. This behavior creates in the interlocutors a feeling of coldness, indifference and strangeness. Up until now, it had no idea that there was such a disturbance. Victims, on both sides of the relationship, simply had no way of imagining what was going on. But the presentation of the face and its interpretation in the light of the cultural codes in use is so fundamental in human relations that people are compelled to think about how to read the facial signs of whom they cross. Whoever easily recognizes the face of others creates embarrassing situations, such as the expression of memories of encounters with details not usually memorized. Since love and obsession are emotions with effects on memory, people who are reminded of past situations many years ago and with details that suggest minutiae and laborious work of mental registration, are suspicious of being invited to establish intimate relationships Which they may not want (or mistakenly desire), without this being the intention of those who spontaneously recognize faces and the circumstances in which he saw them with extreme ease. It is estimated that 2% of the population is unable to recognize faces. This is a relatively common condition, therefore. It is a secret that no one could unmask before there is scientific confirmation about the actual existence of this condition. Nowadays, someone telling someone who has never seen his face or who has not been able to forget it has emotional, symbolic and social effects. Testimonies from people who live the first of these conditions permanently have revealed the need to adopt appropriate social integration strategies. One of them may be to be always ready to smile and to welcome anyone who comes near to it, it is not going to happen that they should recognize the person. In most cases, the smile will be shifted. But in these situations, in principle, the possible interlocutors simply discount the squeeze of sympathy, thinking that the person is talking alone (that happens to many people) or is confusing with another person. Or, if they know the person concerned, they assume that they are extremely friendly and welcoming. This can be tiring for the person who is unable to recognize faces, but is not antisocial.
People with higher-than-normal recognition abilities, on the other hand, learn to keep memories to themselves. Do not confuse them with people who are passionate or obsessive. Society therefore has a normalizing effect on the skills of interaction and values it emotionally and symbolically in a certain way, depending on the culture in use. As a result, as we had foreseen, a separation between social trust - worked by minority people so as not to disturb - and personal trust. What happens to us, when we go to more unusual places like China or Korea or Vietnam or to black Africa, is to be aware of the diversity of Asian or black faces, which surprises us. It surprises us doubly: because we are not accustomed to it, and therefore, in our imagination, when we are in our countries, we tend to standardize Asian and African faces in undifferentiated and abstract, manifestly discriminatory and unifying yellow or black patterns. Because facial gestures are socially shaped differently according to cultures, the cultural distance from the faces of other cultures become transparent. Unconscious signals produced in different societies become invisible or, worse, interpretable as hostile in third societies. What makes the signals emitted and received to and from foreigners impenetrable or at least ambiguous. The same effect of strangeness is produced by faces that live beside us but in conditions of mutual alienation, reinforced by cultural systems alienated from their neighbors. Faces to which we can easily attribute fantasized dangers and risks, which, moreover, occupies important part of the fiction police television, in the news, in the novels and in reality shows. Attracting emotional reactions to instability and distracting them from rational debates that can and should be about real risks and dangers - such as organizing the production, distribution, and financing of goods and services in an ecologically sustainable way . Confidence in general stability is currently supported by punishment regimes (for immigrants and criminals, for example (Palidda & Garcia 2010)) that ideologically disperse the attention of frustrations of expectations, thereby limiting opportunities to confront and resolve Such as materially avoidable but persistent poverty or the risk of desertification.
Justice There are two ways of understanding and living justice, represented by Hobbes and Rousseau: in nature nature seems to be based on lack of trust (Waal 2012: 13: 47 to 15:00) and on the other is trustworthy solidarity that appears as spontaneous (Waal 2012: 11: 04-11: 59). Franz Waal's (2014) study suggests that it is circumstances, not just genes, that make the criteria of justice diverse. A similar conclusion is reached by Declerck and Boone (2016) regarding the construction of the homo economicus: "The social rewards obtained [by individuals] have repercussions in them through the incorporation of norms of cooperation" (op.cit .: 22). For 3, 4 years, children, the authors continue on the same page, they realize that the intentions of help, sharing, information are not always reciprocal, even though they are spontaneous. As their autonomy increases, children learn to restrain themselves and to be selfish. In particular, to identify with groups. They become public figures: they want to respect the norms and defend their reputation, avoid punishments and benefit from intra-group reciprocity. A kind of endemic social rationality to share intentions in a protected way by the identity groups, whose boundaries become critical. People are very sensitive to the manipulation of intra and inter group distinctions. They may choose to personally harm themselves in order to punish unfair behavior by identity groups (op.cit.:23). Heroes, saints, artists, scientists, professionals, make sacrifices, punish and want to see punishments betrayals, as a way of protecting their social self, group, religion, corporation. Trust transforms the fear of betrayal into the expectation of reciprocity. Communication reduces uncertainty and increases cooperation. Physical proximity, the sharing of intentions, the similarity of living conditions, mutual defense vis-à-vis the exterior, physical or symbolic, the mutual recognition of the faces, in particular of the patterns of signs produced by social habits and culture, are instruments and Results of the closure of human groups; But also of flattery, the exchange of gifts, commerce, seduction, politics, demagoguery, or simple trickery. Trust, however, does not depend on
economic retribution or sanctions. It has to do with feeling good about the subjectively constructed identity in the course of the experience of life (op.cit.: 23-24). It has to do with the adjustment between needs and expectations. It has to do with incomes only to the extent that they can interfere with creating the conditions for living happiness. What happens to a relatively low income level ($ 10,000 per year, in the calculation presented by Wilkinson and Pickett (2009, 30-31). Brain studies have been able to identify how social experiences materialize and stabilize in differentiated nervous circuits. Prosocial decisions, for example, depend on three cognitive control functions: conflict resolution, punishment evaluation, impulse control (op.cit.:60). The processing of deliberations activates and depends on the conjugation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) with the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. The PFC also allows to withstand immediate satisfaction in favor of a larger reward later. The lateral orbitofrontal cortex evaluates threats of punishment (op.cit.:59). Brains are standardized in terms of social experiences and socialization needs. Our physiology adapts to our needs and the values to which each person gives privilege, for example, more or less self or hetero centered. More focused on being an individual, less dependent on the group and more open to relationships with strangers, or more integrated into the group, and more closed to relationships with strangers. In addition to the personality of each one, socially constructed by the social pressures we all suffer and by our ability to resist and shape influences, the social values mobilized and the way we activate the brain also depend on the tasks in view and the social context in which Should be performed. The temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) and the quadrilateral lobe (precuneus) intervene in the integration of the goals with the expectations related to the tasks (op.cit.:132): sensitive people can dedicate themselves to bureaucratic work, such as Fernando Pessoa, learning To distinguish the various personalities that inhabit them and to express them in socially appropriate situations. Determination, conflict, emotional control are expressed on the face and can be identified by attentive and competent observers. That so literally come the brain to work, through its effects on the face. Although errors of interpretation, the ability to
change states of people observed, or intelligence capable of anticipating and provoking dramatic contexts in the context of social interactions, make true and fair meanings more complex and uncertain. This instability causes frustrations that can be met through punishment. When something destabilizes social coordination efforts, there is a tendency to find efficient causes, eventually to learn how to improve cooperation in the future. These efficient causes are often attributed to people accused of having intentionally broken out streams of social collaboration, such as politicians, crooks, criminals, foreigners, envious people, etc. It is not always scientific criteria that enforce. On the contrary, as is clear in criminal cases, we live in a culture of individual accountability. While it is no coincidence that, in practice, those who have just confirmed their suspicions are mostly marginal, defenseless, against whom societies maintain and feed prejudices. As criminal slang says, it is the criminal trifles that occupy the courts and prisons. In principle, everyone likes to see someone punished for violating some law. This gives a pretext for the group to close in on themselves and feel more secure. It is a way of reinforcing existing rules rather than questioning them. It is a way of supporting the social efforts of stabilization and refusing instability, in a moment of greater fragility. But who is chosen to apply the punishment? Guala (2012) concluded that no one is willing to personally pay the costs of punishing. Symbolic punishments are preferred (rumor, bad language, ostracism). The State uses this contradiction, developing specialized systems in the name of justice and order (op.cit.:133). But it ends up reproducing social discrimination. The problem is the face: when witnesses of pain, an unknown or unfriendly face does not fuse empathy. But if it is a similar face or sympathetic fuze in the judges and the public pro-social feelings, i.e., Identities (op.cit.:164).
The presentation of the people to each other is made, to a large extent, showing the face. Face of gender, class, ethnic, more or less mature or worn. In the face of instinctive judgments, which the courts and the science of the face seek to bring together objective judgments. Unconscious and instantaneous judgments, guided by ideologies that systematize impressions left by the past in the collective mind, emerge as intuitions. It is sought in the faces to observe the social origins and the reliability of the groups or of the outside of the groups. It is always possible to add rationally weighted judgments. But this is time-consuming work and requires a moral orientation (to consider people generally trustworthy or not) contradictory in itself. If progress is made on the basis of individualism and the optimum interest in relating to strangers through pre-established calculations by employers or the state, how to produce faceto-face confidence with the people we know and with whom we exchange emotions, But can they seem so distant at the same time? What will our family and friends do in their places of work? Will they be judicious professionals or cold exploiters of the work of others? In conditions of modernity, we ourselves create and suffer a distance from ourselves. As if we see ourselves as actors in different stages, lost in choosing the priority to give to the fidelity to which group? To family or professional morals? Society or the economy? To primatial solidarity and empathy or rational self-interest? To the expectations fed in times of fat cows or the anticipation of the restrictions arising from the announced crisis situation? The assessment of environmental and social threats, such as the reading of minds, are evolutionary advantages in the process of intra-species cooperation. The social brain (Brothers 1990) uses face recognition to manage trust and extended social bonds. Facial attraction, especially motivated by anatomical similarities, favors feelings of trust (DeBruine 2002) and creates a positive environment for the valuation of conformity as a reward (Klucharev et al., 2009).
Trust, however, is not assured. On the contrary, it is constantly being violated. Precisely because it depends on the establishment of concrete social relations, sociability groups that are mutually dependent and recognizable, namely through faces, to the exclusion of other human beings, from the genetic point of view, practically the same but from the social point of view different, possibly stigmatized or classified As enemies, as a way to reinforce the unstable trust and intra-group solidarity. The corticolimbica network processes the beliefs and expectations about the others and evaluates the respective confirmations or infirmations experimentally. The amygdala is also essential in the processing of social information. The malfunctioning of these nervous subsystems hinders the (re) knowledge of false beliefs (eventual conflict between representations and realities) and the inference of the state of the thoughts and feelings of others by observing the face (Declerck, & Boone, 2016: 62-62; Three articles mentioned above). What, as we have seen regarding the different installed capacities of face recognition, has variable social effects and that are not monitored neither scientifically nor in daily life. Social and economic neuroscience opens new horizons in the understanding and regulation of trust, cement of societies. Strategically relevant knowledge in the humanitarian construction of post-conflict and fair globalization. To develop these emerging approaches it will be necessary, from the point of view of scientific institutions, to find ways to overcome the hyperspecialized closures that currently reduce the opportunities to link the social sciences with each other (Wallerstein 1996; Lahire 2012: 319-356) Linking the natural sciences to the social sciences.
References Bourdieu, P. (2001). As estruturas sociais da Economia. Lisboa: Piaget. Brothers, L. (1990). The social brain: A project for integration primate behavior and
neuro-physiology in a new domain. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 179– 188. Caparrós, M. (2014). A fome, Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores. Christie, N. (2000, 3rd ed). Crime control as industry - towards gulags, western style. London: Routledge. Collins, R. (2005). Interaction rituals chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Corballis, M. (2011). The recursive mind – the origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DeBruine, L. (2002). Facial resemblances enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 269, 1307–1312. Declerck, C. & Boone, C. (2016). Neuroeconomics of prosocial behavior - the compassionate egoist. Oxford: Elsevier. Desmurget, M. (2012). TV Lobotomie : La vérité scientifique sur les effets de la télévision. Available at: http://www.informaction.info/video-sciencetechnologie-tv-lobotomie-la-verite-scientifique-sur-les-effets-de-la-television. Diamond, J. (2008). Colapso - ascensão e queda das sociedades humanas. Lisboa: Gradiva. Dores, A. (2013). The brain, the face and emotion. In A. Freitas-Magalhães et al. (Eds.), Handbook on facial expression of emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 129-181). Porto: FEELab Science Books. Dores, A. (2010). Espírito de proibir. Lisboa: Argusnauta. Dores, A. (2011). Medo e vergonha: emoções comunitárias e emoções sociais. Revista Angolana de Sociologia, 7, 43–54. Dores, A. (2016). The time and the face. In A. Freitas-Magalhães et al. (Eds.) Handbook on facial expression of emotion (Vol. 2, pp. 261-288). Porto: FEELab Science Books.
Elias, N. (1990). O processo civilizacional (Vol I, II). Lisboa: D. Quixote. Foucault, M. (2004). A hermenêutica do sujeito. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Giddens, A. (1992). As conseqüencias da modernidade. S. Paulo: UNESP. Guala, F. (2012). Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 1–59. Klucharev, V. et al. (2009). Reinforcement learning signal predicts social conformity. Neuron, 61, 140–151. Lahire, B. (2012(. Monde pluriel. Penser l’unité des sciences sociales. Paris: Seuil. Lusa, A. (2013). Denunciantes de corrupção têm protecção “nula ou muito limitada.” País ao minuto. Available at: http://www.noticiasaominuto.com/pais/126914/ denunciantes-de-corrupcao-tem-proteccao-nula-ou-muito-limitada. Malešević, S. (2010). The Sociology of war and violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mouzelis, N. (1995). Sociological theory: What went wrong? – diagnosis and remedies. London: Routledge. Palidda, S., & Garcia, J. (2010). Criminalización racista de los migrantes en Europa. Granada: Comares Editorial. Prigogine, I. (1996). O fim das certezas. Lisboa: Gradiva. Waal, F. (2012). Moral behavior in animals. Youtube. Available at: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk. Waal, F. (2014). The bonobo and the atheist – in search of humanism among the primates. London: Norton. Wacquant, L. (2000). As prisões da miséria. Oeiras: Celta. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Para abrir as ciências sociais. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level – why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Penguin Books.