Who can we Trust?

Who can we trust?

Paper delivered at the Meath Peace Group meeting in Navan in November 2005.

 

I wish to thank Julitta and the MPG for their kind invitation to address the meeting tonight, and for the opportunity to tell you, from personal experience, some of the things that have happened, and why trust is so difficult for us.

 

Trust is a feature of social relationships that is highly problematic but recurrent,[1] something well understood in situations where it has broken down, such as, within Northern Ireland, between N. Ireland and the Irish Republic, between N. Ireland and the Westminster Government, and also in places like the Balkans.[2] 

 

"Solving the trust problem means overcoming our ignorance, and, consequently, stabilizing cooperation,”[3] a challenging task and responsibility. 

 

During the past 80+ years of N. Ireland’s colourful history, while there have been wrongs on both major sides of the community, resorting to terrorist violence was not the way to address these difficulties.  This has resulted in the breakdown in social cohesion, and where social cohesion breaks down, groups, or societies, become divided.

 

‘Cohesion’ is understood as the ‘cement’ that binds together group members and maintains their relationships to one another.[4]

 

While cohesion within wider society may suffer, internal cohesion is strengthened when faced by a sharpening definition of external threat or enemy,[5] e.g, in times of national crisis, such as, war.  The “immediacy of the experience,” which

arises from the close proximity of conflicting groups, the shared common histories of the conflictants, and the dynamic of severe stereotyping coupled with radically different perceptions of each other [6]

 

are identified as the criteria that differentiates internal from international conflicts.[7] 

 

Because conflicts are usually “lodged in long-standing relationships,” they are prolonged or intractable.[8]  Understanding that this historical dimension is present helps us to see divided societies against a broader backdrop, and why trust can be so difficult.  The existence of “long-term animosity, perception of enmity, and deep-rooted fear” converge to validate the use of the word ‘intractable.’[9]  Immediacy also means that the enemy may live virtually next door, as in areas of Bosnia and Somalia, as well as in N. Ireland, and “not half-way around the globe.”[10]

 

Building trust in such situations is profoundly challenging because the sociological dynamic of “reciprocal causation,”[11] implies that

the response mechanism within the cycle of violence and counterviolence becomes the cause for perpetuating the conflict, especially where groups have experienced mutual animosity for decades, if not generations.[12]

 

Lederach views long-term fear and the experience of violence as net contributors to distrust, and therefore division, in societies.  Hence, the way to solve this problem is to deal effectively with the instruments of fear and violence.

 

But let me say this: difference/diversity is something that ought to be recognised and celebrated by all,[13] but within certain limits in non-threatening areas, and room provided for each sectoral interest in society to express its own differentiating marks in a way that is respectful to those who do not share those differentiating marks.

 

Lederach says that “in almost all cases …conflicts are intranational in scope, that is, they are fought between groups who come from within the boundaries of a defined state.”[14]  He goes on to note that although most conflicts start here,

they internationalise to the degree that some conflictants, particularly opposition movements, inhabit neighbouring countries; weapons and money flow in from the surrounding region and from more distant locations; and displaced refugee populations cross immediate and distant borders.  As such, many contemporary armed conflicts are most accurately defined as internal and internationalised.[15] (Emphasis his).

 

Let me unpack some of these ideas of Lederach.  First, the parties to the ‘conflict’ in N. Ireland involved in armed terrorism had the luxury of the ‘safe haven’ provided by this country [sic. The Republic of Ireland] throughout the 80+ years of the IRA’s campaign.  The murderers of my brother operated from and returned to this country after their heinous terrorist crime had been perpetrated.  Second, weapons and money have flowed in from USA, and from Libya, as well as the massive financing and training activity operated by the Dublin government for the IRA in the early years of the present campaign of genocide – who knows but it could still be ongoing today?  Does this ring a bell in anyone’s ears?

 

While ‘conflicts’ may start as inter-community fall-outs, they don’t stop there.  In Northern Ireland and in the Middle East, spillage into other countries has been evidenced, especially where something like a unit of identity bond has drawn other nationalities in to support those involved in armed terrorist uprisings.[16]  Where ‘insurgents’ have been effective, there has also been a certain breakdown in the government’s authority and ability to deal with issues of state security, as in N. Ireland.  Where this has occurred, writes Lederach, the roots of “distrust, fear and paranoia” appear, and these are then “reinforced by the immediate experience of violence, division, and atrocities.”[17]  Hatred and fear that fuel conflict are further exacerbated by this experience.

 

Where terrorism is the instrumental cause of trauma, when the traumatised cry out for help and comfort and safety, and that cry is unanswered, their sense of “basic trust” is shattered.  They feel utterly abandoned, and cast out of both human and divine systems of care and protection that sustain life.  Then, life is pervaded with feelings of alienation, disconnection, and of belonging to the dead rather than the living.[18]  Not only then is self damaged, so is the society in which that self ‘exists.’  So the shattering of ‘basic trust’ contributes to societal divisions. 

 

Drawing this together, we can say that trust involves

1.       Expectations of benign, not harmful, behaviour based on beliefs about the trusted person’s motivation and competence.

2.     An acknowledgment of general integrity on the part of the other, a sense that the trusted person is a good person.

3.     A willingness to rely on the trusted person, an acceptance of risk[19] and vulnerability; and

4.     A general disposition to interpret the trusted person’s actions favourably.[20]

 

So,

trust is a disposition towards a trusting behaviour, that is, behaviour with limited safeguards, accepting vulnerability, based on the expectation that this risk is limited.[21] 

 

Building trust in divided societies demands the existence of trustworthiness in those who are seeking to establish an appropriate working relationship for the common good.  For those who are desirous of this end, given the time-relatedness of trust,[22] those who prove recalcitrant must be left behind.[23]  This will increase confidence in those who seek progress, while disciplining others in acceptable behaviours and attitudes.  The down-side of this strategy is to create the circumstances where the untrustworthy might act outside the law and, by use of violence or the threat of violence,[24] renew their involvement in life-threatening anti-social behaviour.

 

In building trust, it is expected that the backdrop is eventual interdependence within which the dynamics of trust operate.  Risk assessment is a crucial aspect of the process, and when completed, enables an acknowledgment of trust-worthy motives to be made.  Some regard acknowledgment as being essential to trust.[25]  If I cannot accept that that other person in whom I want to trust, or in whom I am expected to trust, is trustworthy, then the enterprise will not even get off the starting blocks.

 

However, the process of risk-taking is simultaneous with the growth of trust, where individuals or groups/collectives make themselves vulnerable[26] by acting in ways that puts the other’s best interests before their own.[27]  Doing this exposes the risk-taker to potential disappointment and hurt, if the action is not reciprocated.[28]  E.g, when Bertie Ahern stated after the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998 that if the PIRA would not decommission, he would decommission them – he refused to do so, thus damaging trust. 

 

For intentions to be understood accurately, each has to furnish the other with sufficient evidence that he will keep his word, thus reducing uncertainty regarding motivation.  Where this evidence is lacking, or where the evidence, as manifested in behaviour, is contra-indicative, the circuit is broken.[29]  Where it is present, our expectations go beyond what the evidence suggests.[30]  However, where reciprocal risk-taking escalates, so also does a sense of confidence that each is playing according to the agreed rules.  This is ideally where divided societies want to get to, because it diminishes psychologically the perception that a risk was involved in the first place.  Paradoxically, the evidence suggests that a sense of trust is borne of trusting acts – of first taking the risk of trusting.

 

Olen and Barry write,

If we are to live together in society, we must cooperate with one another. And if we are to cooperate with one another, we must trust one another.  And we cannot trust people who treat honesty, good faith, and loyalty lightly.[31]

 

Trust is the basis for building a new society.  The work of “building minimum trust with former ‘enemies’ – and now opponents – and co-operating as partners toward the creation of a new (society)”[32] highlights the improvement in relationships that is possible when appropriate conditions of trust are met.  But implicit in this statement is the fact that trust-building is “an infinitely complex and delicate exercise … (which) may take a generation or more” to materialise.[33]  There is a considerable time element in trust that must be acknowledged by all stakeholders.  As Patfoort remarks, “Sincerity builds and gives trust in return,” (emphasis his).[34]  Mistrust germinates and spreads like a cancer where insincerity is embedded.

 

Possibly the best that can be expected or achieved in small communities (for example, N. Ireland) is the ability and willingness of former enemies to work together in their mutual interests of livelihood and security.[35]  But where enemies are perceived to be those who gave rise to security issues and the removal of livelihood in the first place, these problems are exacerbated. 

 

Trust is inextricably linked etymologically with truth, and before you can search for truth you must be interested in finding it.[36]  Further, “the will to truth cannot be sustained without the will to obey the truth;” trust cannot be separated from a truthful life. 

 

Trust is so essential that whatever time is necessary to build it ought to be taken so that long-term peace can be achieved.  This cannot be forced in some kind of political hothouse.  To achieve this, the idea of political accountability at all levels must be established.

 

“A particular difficulty arises when violence is perceived especially by the perpetrator but also by observers, as a necessary cost of achieving justice.”[37]

 

The possibility that under certain circumstances violence can lead to a more just and a better world is believed very widely.  Few Americans, for instance, feel that the violence of the American

Revolution was unjustified.  Such beliefs cannot be ruled out as

erroneous automatically.  Nevertheless, the case against these

beliefs from empirical evidence and historical records is very strong.  Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obtained their independence from Britain with virtually no violence.  They did not have a civil war like the United States, and they are certainly less violent societies than the United States is today, though they may not be quite as rich.[38]

 

 

These are useful counter-arguments to terrorist and other violence as a means to political independence from a perceived undesirable ruler.  The examples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are illustrative of the long-term peace and reconciliation that is achievable, and the long-term fruits of peaceful ways of promoting change.  Societies that use violence and criminality to pursue political ends usually produce societies where violence is seen to be the best way of getting what you want, if not the only way.  When resorted to, trust is undermined.  “Sustained violence also often systematically reduces trust between neighbours and communities.”[39]

 

A peaceful and trusting outcome is not guaranteed when use is made of violence to promote a particular end;[40] quite the reverse.  As Karl Marx once said, “violence and threat are very poor ‘midwives for a new society.’”[41] 

 

Those who act outside the law to achieve their own ends undermine their own legitimacy when they resort to these tactics to pursue their objectives.  In fact, “the bloodless ‘glorious revolution’ in England in 1689 set off an extraordinary period of economic and cultural development domestically…,”[42] a fact that is not generally known or admitted.  The nation also experienced a few hundred years of peace and prosperity.

Language games

The use of “language games,”[43] is a device used by philosophers, including ‘political philosophers,’ to disguise what they are really saying.  They have developed a set of rules that are known only to the initiates, while those who are not, are lost because the expressions used in ordinary language do not mean the same to the onlooker that they do to the initiate.  These “language games” have as their basis a ‘life-context’[44] that must be understood for effective communication to take place.  In other words, you must be familiar with the vocabulary of the ‘in-group’ if you are to understand what they are talking about.  Example:  NI Civil service jargon – AAs, AOs, EOIs, EOIIs, SOs, etc.  There is some chance of understanding the meaning of expressions when that context is clear, but none if there is ambiguity.  These “language games” are designed to misinform the outsider, to bluff him, to keep him in the dark, and lead him to misinterpret the intended meaning of the expressions used.  When it is not easily known what is intended, confusion results, division is perpetuated, and mistrust grows.[45]

 

Further, since meaning is conveyed through words, it is crucial that both the sender and the receiver are using the same dictionary for effective communication to occur.[46]  Ambiguity