intro (ii): in trust we trust

Promises ask something of us all. They are supplications that seek to assure the subjects of a promise that their expectations of others and the world will be met. A promise is a sacred pledge that is made not only by individuals but that is embedded into the machinations of the socio-biological mandate to trust. It flows through the well of suggestion as the world invites us into an unspoken agreement with each other. Trust as an objective reality dares us to fulfill its promise, that we are all participating in the everyday observance and renewal of a sacred pledge to honour the safety, security, and stability of others. In this respect, promising is a compulsion that we cannot escape, for if we are designed to trust as a socio-biological imperative, then every morning when we rise and every night when we sleep, we are promising ourselves and others that we will observe the socio-biologically sanctioned social contract that sustains relationships based on goodwill and that are maintained in good faith. These acts of promising which are renewed every moment are not only unspoken, but active. For we must choose to do no harm and to act in good faith. Where one does not act in good faith, thereby assimilating the requirements of trust, they uphold only a transactional understanding of trust that enables good relations with only a select number of people. As such, they subvert the systemic requirements of trust and promise which must be extended to all regardless of one’s opinion of the people one encounters. Theirs remains a tribalistic conceptualisation of trust despite their sanctioned day-to-day observance of it and irrespective of their lacklustre efforts to extend trust’s promise to others outside of their immediate or chosen spheres. This is how the levee breaks.

Notably, those who uphold transactional and subjective conceptualisations of trust ne’er pose themselves the question of whether or not they themselves are trustworthy on this conception. People always already take for granted their individual trustworthiness and seek to assimilate others into their own attitudes and beliefs instead of observing a broad-based attitude of what is possible when one assimilates themselves to the peaceable demands of collective life that invite one to be non-judgmentally curious about the other. Viewing trust in transactional terms provides a sense of power as individuals believe in their singular capacity to control the events of their lives and, in particular, the people who participate in their lives. This desire for control need not extend to a desire to control the lives of others and the outcomes they enjoy therein, but it can lend itself to this and notions of others’ undeservingness of basic social goods, including the endless reservoir of trust. A failure to subjectively extend trust to all betrays an inability to conceive of and commit to a world wherein positive relationships flourish. It breaches the promise to accept others as they come and to commit to the shared realisation of individual aspirations so long as they do not cause harm. Still, the wheels on the bus go round and round and the merchants of partial sympathies rain down on the earth all day long.

***

Promise and trust relate to a singular pursuit that characterises human life: the cultivation of a sense of belonging, to oneself, others, and the broader environment. If promise is built into trust, then those who do not regard trust as an objective, socio-biologically mandated material reality, are blind to how they are always already practicing trust in their lives. Trust is a practice and discipline that must be exercised lest one fail to lead a life that is free from fear, paranoia, suspicion, and an unrelenting questioning of others’ intentions. The subjection of others by those whose conception of trust is transactional to evaluations of their suitability as subjects of trust serves as an elaborate vetting process to define one’s ‘community’, including the moral-ethical commitments of such a community or communities. This exclusionary understanding of trust and the promise inherent to it undermines many people’s capacity to extend some grace to others whose attitudes, desires, experiences, and aspirations may differ from theirs. Belonging, as socio-biologically mandated trust would have it, should be experienced in relation to every person whom one encounters. The objective reality of trust also mandates that we conceive of ourselves as belonging to each other in a non-discriminatory manner. Accordingly, in observing our mandate to trust in each other and the world at large, we are to understand each individual as coextensive with other individuals. When we regard another person, we are to be moved by the recognition that they too are engaged in efforts to make their lives sensible and are perpetually learning how to practice trust. In this regard, home is pervasive and ubiquitous, dancing on street corners and in board rooms alike. It sways to the rhythm of open and closed hearts alike, inviting, always inviting the embrace of those who stray from the promises of old.

Trust is a type of insurance, a socio-biological covenant that bonds all individuals and communities. From it, our social obligations stem. These obligations are involuntary commitments that we assimilate and subsequently transform into voluntary commitments. Trust as a form of insurance is free of charge and protects us from the vagaries and fickleness of individual attitudes and dispositions. Human beings are predisposed to trust as we are all indebted to each other to build institutions and norms that permit each of us to lead fulfilling lives. Still, the partiality of extant governing norms and institutions undermines the principled basis on which all life exists and flourishes. We are always already trustworthy because we all practice trust independent of our preferences. However, the many tumultuous events of history and contemporary life that stem from the partial sympathies of individuals create the illusion that the effective exercise of one’s agency can only be realised if one is discriminatory in how they practice trust. Meanwhile discrimination is broadly regarded as something that is practiced by or is characteristic of people external to oneself and the communities one chooses to participate in. Trust is not a manmade compact, though it becomes a social compact when it is assimilated and internalised by individuals. The only condition that needs to hold for trust to be assimilated is the basic presence of other people and creatures with whom one must coexist. As we are all invested in our continued existence, including those who experience suicide ideation or commit suicide, we recognise in each other the desire for safety, security, and stability. Unfortunately, we do not always comprehend that this requires cooperation instead of competition. The myth of the competitive basis of human relationships, which are always already social, has wrought the disruption and distraction of countless lives. Thus, when we look at each other we fancy that we are staring into a mirror and if we do not find ourselves, then we dismiss whoever is standing before us. These are the beginnings of violence, that we seek to assimilate others into our own modes of being.

***

The supposition that we are essentially living in a state of nature that is free of any overarching governing logics to moderate and mediate human behaviour, has historically failed to apprise philosophers and scientists alike of the hopeful foundations of human living. Trust as a socio-biologically mandated imperative is fundamentally hopeful as it is non-discriminatory. Nevertheless, safety, security, and stability are consistently conceptualised in oppositional, polarising terms, hence the prevailing understanding of trust in transactional and subjective terms. Accordingly, in the contemporary social imaginary we are hostage to the treacherous belief that the universalisation of trust and self-actualisation, including as members of discrete communities, are mutually exclusive. Here, there is no universal solidarity as partiality remains sovereign. This is not exclusive to Western societies, for partiality is ubiquitous, even amidst communities that have borne the brunt of the violent and discriminatory practices observed by other communities. However, true solidarity can neither be gendered, racialised, classist, nor anthropocentric. Partiality cannot be replaced through the institution of alternative partial sympathies. If one is unable to recognise the materiality of trust as the basis on which the world is built and sustained, then one will be unable to participate in and practice trust with those who do not belong to the same communities or uphold congruous notions of ‘home’. This is the challenge of old, how to move beyond the supposition that trust is not only subjective but finite. The same is true of hope, which stems from trust and gains its expectant character from the latter. Trust is endless, hopeful, wonderous, curious, and full of promise. It is the primary organising principle of the world, and it is always already inviting us to practice and assimilate it into ourselves. This is the invitation of this series, for failure to assimilate trust will herald the premature demise of humanity. And so the clock chimes as another day dawns, setting with the dusk, and wading through the pregnant pause of tomorrow.