123. The destruction of
distrust
Trust is
needed to give some space to others for choice and action. The alternative is
to lock up the other in measures of control and monitoring.
However,
while distrust is destructive it is itself difficult to destroy. Deep distrust
will always defeat trust.
In a
relationship that starts with distrust others have to prove that they are
trustworthy. This is doomed to fail. Proving one’s trustworthiness is logically
impossible in the same way that it is to prove that a theory is true. No matter
how often or long a theory has been corroborated, i.e. not contradicted by
observations, it remains possible that it will be falsified in the future. In
the same way, no matter how often one shows one’s trustworthiness, in keeping
to agreements and promises, and taking positive action to mutual advantage or
even from altruism, and being open about mistakes and failures, this does not
prove that next time one will not break trust.
Since
trustworthiness cannot be proved, and the possibility of its lack remains, the
mistrustful are inclined to impose ever-stronger tests of trustworthiness. But
there is no logical end to this. At some point the people who remain mistrusted
will break out and exit. And the mistrustful will interpret this as evidence of
untrustworthiness.
If a
relationship is started in distrust, and people have to prove their
trustworthiness, they will avoid all actions that may break expectations, which
would likely be seen as a confirmation of untrustworthiness. No opposition will
be voiced. I once worked at a university faculty where the dean took the stance
that people must first prove their trustworthiness. It led to an organization
of ‘yes-men’, lack of criticism, sweet-talking the dean, a culture of fear and
conformism. It is the only case that I know of where in the end a dean was
deposed by a university board.
By the same
mechanism, in the difficult struggle of going from eros to philia, discussed in
a preceding item of this blog, a deep fear of vulnerability and failure may
yield the stance that now the other has prove his/her trustworthiness, and then
the destruction of love sets in, leading to an exit which is seen as a
confirmation of untrustworthiness, or lack of love.
Deep
distrust can keep one from engaging in relationships that would allow people to
show their trustworthiness. Trust, on the other hand, enables relationships and
can be adjusted when untrustworthiness manifests itself.
In contrast
with distrust, trust, with its assumption that another is trustworthy, can be
falsified by evidence to the contrary. However, if the room for action offered
by trust leads to a disappointment of expectations, that does not necessarily
prove untrustworthiness. It can be due to a mishap, a mistake, or lack of attention.
One should extend benefit of the doubt and engage in voice, a discussion
of what is going on, allowing for mistakes or lack of competence, and be open
about one’s own errors and mistakes. When this voice does not work one can
reduce the space for action, extending control, or one can go for exit.
Trust is imperfection on the move.
No comments:
Post a Comment