325. Causes of a crisis of trust
Trust is said to be like clean air: one does not talk about until it is no longer there. And now there is a lot of such talk. The word ‘trust’ careens across daily discourse. Why? Where does the smog of distrust come from?
There is, I propose, a pernicious combination of three
conditions: a great need for trust, a lack of courage for it, and a lack of
trustworthiness to merit it. I consider each in turn.
First, an increased need for trust arises from an
increasing complexity and interdependence in society, in division of labour
that went global, with fluid capital and labour, yielding shifts of production
and employment, waves of refugees, tax evasion, and pressures on governments to
accommodate the demands of multinationals. Lack of trust on these matters has
led to revolt against free trade and ruling elites, intolerance regarding
refugees, a re-emergence of nationalism, and shelter sought in authoritarian
regimes.
In communication, opportunities for connection have
exploded on the Internet, with social media, such as Facebook, YouTube,
Instagram, etc. There, lack of trust leads people to cocoon in bubbles of the
likeminded, and to blast invective across the media.
Second, there is a lack of courage for trust. Trust
entails giving room for actions of others, which yields risk, in room for
action against your interest. Without risk there is no relation. It requires
courage to accept that, and also resilience, to cope with setbacks and disappointments.
I discussed this in an item on adaptiveness (item 321). To cushion courage, one
needs some slack, a buffer of time, money and attention, to absorb setbacks.
Trust is not being nice to each other: Precisely because there is trust one can
give the other ‘a piece of one’s mind’.
Present society, at least in highly developed Western
Europe, has become accustomed to risk avoidance. Conditions have to be safe.
This leads to the excessive, perverse control of professional work, discussed
in the foregoing item in this blog.
To connect with earlier item in this blog (323, 324):
Control may be based on scripts, as a generalized frame, but must allow for
interpretations and variations depending on the context, as narratives.
Third, there is a lack of the trustworthiness that is
required to deserve trust. In economics classes, prospective managers and
politicians have been told that self-interest is a virtue, ‘greed is good’, and
efficiency is the basis for prosperity and happiness. But trust requires
give-and-take, with openness and awareness of the interests of the other, and
some appreciation of the intrinsic value of trust-based relationships.
Liberalism has won the day, and in liberalism virtue
is a private, not a public concern. Debate on morals is seen as a stifling
moralism that hampers markets, but trust requires virtues of reasonableness, empathy,
openness to others, moderation, and justice, as argued earlier in this blog.
Here, a problem also is the following. In more complex
organizations and institutional structures, with division of labour,
intertwining interests, roles and positions, responsibilities become diffuse,
and blame can be dissolved, across people, and that also undermines
trustworthiness. This is part of what earlier I have called ‘system
tragedy’.
No comments:
Post a Comment