587. Guilt and broken relations

 Relations are regularly broken. Which side is guilty? Both sides can be. Relations often break when trust is betrayed because agreements are not honoured, in letter or intent. But intent can be vague; a matter of interpretation and memory, and not everything can be fixed in black on white. That is inevitable, because one cannot investigate, document and control everything. That can mean that the victimised partner has been mistaken in extending trust, from naivety or a misplaced assumption of loyalty. Trust can be dumb. Trust is emotional because it carries risk, but trust can also be partially rational, in an assessment of the partner’s trustworthiness.

A recipe for loss of trust is making promises one cannot fulfil. The government has regularly done that, and thereby has lost the trust of citizens. One can better admit that as government you cannot prevent all ills, and can at most promise emergency relief. Trust is also affected by bureaucracy. There can be trust in intentions and in competence. Trust in the government may decline on both sides: broken promises on the intentional side and bureaucratic incompetence. An important feature is impersonal procedures and formalities that do not take into account personal conditions of work, income, home situation, education etc. Conversations under four eyes further mutual empathy. That is expensive, but so much more effective, and can save costs by gaining trust and motivating the prevention of further error and misdemeanor.

People can be reliable on the basis of control of their conduct, by means of hierarchical supervision, contracts, and incentives of reward or punishment, or fear of loss of reputation that reduces the chance of good future relations. Excessive control, however, signals mistrust, which triggers retaliation with mistrust.

Next to control, trustworthiness can also be based on a general, shared morality, or personal bonds of family or friendship. The second has the drawback of locking people in and depriving them of the diversity of insight and experience outside the clan. It can lead to the continuation of toxic relations inside the clan, out of obligatory loyalty to the family.

In other words, one can have trust ‘on’, on the basis of control, or trust ‘in’ on the basis of morality or personal bonds.

The danger of exercising only reason, no emotions, that it engenders excessive suspicion and control that yields no room, no oxygen, blocking fruitful relations. It is wise to take a dive in limited ‘initial trust’, with a limited risk and investments, so that, if things go wrong, the damage is not too large, As the collaboration proceeds, trust deepens, and one can set the stakes higher.

Perhaps this graduality is not an option, because you must in one go  make a big investment. In that case, see to it that you do not become one-sidedly dependent because that investment has value only in that particular relation. The other side then is tempted to demand a larger share of jointly produced value, or he will break the relation and leave you with a worthless investment. In that case, share the ownership and attendant risk. It can, however, be that the investment makes your value to the partner unique, so he cannot do without you, and will not threaten to leave.

Some readers may find this too calculative, but blind trust is risky. You can afford that if you have great power and wealth, and can carry great risks. Thus, the rich get richer, because they can afford riskier projects, which carry a higher profit.