Humans have long been aware of the problems associated with a lack of trust. However, we have tended to deal with the issue of trust by seeking ways to overcome distrust or develop and maintain trust in the presence of distrust. The basic assumption seems to be that distrust is part of what it means to be human. We may think of eradicating distrust in a particular situation but never completely from the human condition. But this assumption ignores two important facts about distrust which, to all intents and purposes, have inexplicably been overlooked. However, these two facts play a central role in forging a solution to this scourge on our cultural landscape.
The first fact is that distrust is found nowhere else in nature but among humans. It is a unique human phenomenon. This is an important piece of information for two reasons. First, it is generally accepted that humans are the last species to appear on earth, and second, the very first step of human science is observation of the rest of nature. This means that everything humans learn that is not a part of their nature is copied, in part, from the other species. We can safely conclude that humans did not model distrust from other species and we are the only species who exhibit this nonproductive behavior.
Even though the second fact is generally accepted by most of us not much attention is paid to it. Because distrust has not been extensively studied by our scholars it is an unheralded fact that there is an entire class of humans who, on the question of distrust, are as distinguished from the rest of humanity as are the other species in nature.
The boundary between the absence and presence of distrust represents the only bright white line in the human experience. It is such a bright line that it effectively divides humanity into two distinct species. Distrust is not a pediatric affliction; it does not exist among infants. One only has to observe the interaction among infants and children to recognize that. Distrust of other humans does not exist in the infant mind, nor does the fear that such distrust generates. But among the adult of the species the picture is different. Distrust is a characteristic of the adult stage of the species. Many adult humans make bold attempts to overcome this distrust but it remains a daily effort. This distinction between the infant and adult stages of the species is both interesting and instructive.
These two facts present an interesting research situation that will be useful as we attempt to understand distrust more fully. It is not often in a research situation to find that a quality being studied is the distinguishing factor. On one hand we find that all other non-human species exhibit no distrust and this is contrasted with the sole human species that exhibits distrust. It appears that this difference can be attributed to a human characteristic. But this is countered by the factor that distrust only manifests itself in the adult stage of the species. Because of our relationship with the rest of nature I would expect to find that distrust would be present among the infants of the species and the adults would learn from the other species how to develop trust. There seems to be no reason why humans would gain distrust as they mature into adulthood.
For our purposes, it is not necessary to determine at which point in the transition from infancy to adulthood that distrust becomes a part of human nature. It is sufficient to understand that this situation exists; that in individual human beings the transition from infant to adult also marks a downward shift from a state of trust to one of distrust.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
3 comments:
Our major religious systems are teaching children that their badness comes from something outside of their control, and their goodness comes from something outside of their control. We must recognize that badness is a natural human potential and goodness is a natural human potential. Because we are teaching that neither is primarily up to us, we have little hope of intentially creating the conditions that make any given potential most likely to express.
Once we recognize that we have a choice, we must understand systems that make goodness more likely. We have all the good knowledge we need to do this—it's our bad assumptions that are killing us.
We also have to understand outliers—individuals and cultures. Good systems will immediately start to shift the center of mass, but there will still be people running around with guns in their hands. Right now, we use force to deal with outliers, but we don't very often use design. Designing the conditions that make a choice of goodness most likely is essential.
And finally, each of us is a one-person demonstration community of trust. Or distrust.
Distrust is not a learned behavior as many have suggested. It is, rather, an awaken state of consciousness. We are born distrust but we have no knowledge of that until a stimulus triggers it. The first time it manifested itself, we are told, was during and exchange between the first couple--Adam and Eve--and a certain serpent. This state of mind is awaken as if to question the love of a certain Creator. His Love being this sentiment that pushes one not only to hope for the welfare of others but also compels to create that welfare or help create if for others without expecting anything in return.
The couple, it is said, decided to put themselves on the safe side, they thought, by acting in a way they assumed would grant them this power to dominate even their creator or, at most, be like him. But the truth of the matter is distrust causes us to seek for something that we already are and have!
Is distrust what is really called the original sin or what? If that's the case, then eradicating distrust in us is redeeming the race as well. But isn't the Golden Rule, at least, a tool to do just that? Or is a reminder that our neighbors naturally love us? There's a lot to ponder...
Avonia, your comment about design reminds me about an unpublished manuscript about designing the future by the systems theorist, Bela Benathy. You can find it here. www.ithaca.edu/rowland/ctf/ctf6howcreate.pdf
Post a Comment