A Question of Trust

by Lothlorien

What is trust and what does it mean to you?

Were your boundaries personally formulated, or were they bequeathed to you by your family/peers/society?

Is trust stagnant, or does it have fluidity?

Is it permeable, or inviolable??

Does it have boundaries, guidelines, rules, and, if it does, who is making those rules? Were they simply inherited, handed down through generations like traditions? And if so, like many traditions, do those rules actually need an overhaul?

Once broken can it be wholly rebuilt, or will it always sit on a fault line of human fragility?

Of course there are matters of trust which rightly should remain cemented, and any breaking of these trusts: theft, assault, abuse, rape, murder etc., should be treated with the contempt and seriousness they deserve, but, to my mind, most of these are to do with the arena of personal consent surrounding one’s body and belongings, things we are individually entitled to lay claim to, and ownership of, without challenge.

What we do not have ownership of however is other people; not our friends, not our spouses, nor our children. Nor do we possess the right to define the ethical guidelines by which they choose to live their own lives. Without setting implicit ground rules at the birth of a relationship, something which rarely happens, and an agreement from the other party to abide by these rules, how can we genuinely expect others to be living their lives in a manner conducive to our ideas of what is or is not acceptable, and in turn declare our trust broken when our personal, yet unspoken, rules have not been adhered to by somebody else?

Are you asking too much in return for your trust?

Are you asking others to abide by a set of arbitrary rules, governed and policed, by you, for you and without thought as to what matters to them? Or are you upfront with what matters to you, what you need, what you expect, what is a no, what is a hard no, and what you are prepared to compromise on? How often do we ask others to obey rules, which we have prescribed to a situation, in a bid to keep our own ego and self-worth intact, when in fact we should be the ones maintaining those things, for ourselves and within ourselves, regardless of the actions of others?

How often do we even discuss our rules, particularly when entering into romantic relationships? In my experience this happens rarely. When it does happen it allows for the partnership to be built on a foundation of such solid understanding and agreement, that ultimately the incidences of broken trust become far less because no one is using guess work to feel out what’s likely to cause damage and what is acceptable to the other person we are in relationship with. Yet still we, for the most part, base our trust, the offering of and the taking away of, on assumptions.

Why does one person’s idea of what is right or wrong equate to whether trust is broken or not? Why are double standards seen as something inherently wrong (thank you Joe Duncan https://link.medium.com/m80UGQNuuX) when what matters to one doesn’t necessarily matter to another, especially if this discussion was never had in the first place? E.g. if in a committed relationship with one who doesn’t consider monogamy to be an integral part of commitment, why should a physical interaction, outside of that relationship be interpreted as a breaking of trust and commitment, particularly if it was never even discussed at the outset? Why should monogamy be considered the default?

It seems to me the majority of the rules we must follow, to be considered trustworthy, and ethical, have been set and handed down by archaic patriarchal traditions, set in a society which loves nothing more than the governing and policing of the minds and bodies of others, particularly those belonging to people of colour, people living with disabilities, those of a lower socio-economic standing, women, and children. Politicians, CEO’s etc, especially the white, Christian, male ones, lie all the time yet we make them Presidents, Prime Ministers, captains of industry, pay them millions and put our lives in their hands, yet end personal relationships, over far smaller transgressions, of non existent contracts, on a regular basis.

“Trust is a dicey subject, everyone wants to be trusted but few are willing to put in the work to show themselves trustworthy.” (Unknown)

There’s a saying, attributed to Buddha, which has been relentlessly raising its stubborn head in my life of late, it goes something like this ~ “If one has not learnt compassion for themselves one has not truly learnt the art of compassion” and it is this idea which has in turn led me to ask the question: if one has not learnt how to trust themselves, can they truly trust in others, or ask others to trust in them?

For example:

If I don’t trust my eye not to wander from monogamy, how can I trust yours to remain on me?

If I don’t trust my intellect enough to finish a project, how can another trust me with a project?

If I don’t trust my voice, how can I be trusted to speak?

If I don’t trust that I have taught my child well enough to do ___________ then how can I trust my child to do the task?

If I don’t trust myself to ask for what I need/want, then how can you trust I won’t be angry or hurt about things which may be seemingly inconsequential to you?

All of which leaves me pondering whether trust is really just a game of the ‘chicken or the egg’? Which comes first, trusting or being trusted?

“You have to intentionally choose to trust people, because there’s nothing anyone really does to earn or lose trust, we all just decide to see the humanity in others and trust nonetheless.”

I have broken trust and I have had my trust broken, on each of these occasions it had more to say about me than anyone else. These moments spoke to me of being dishonest with myself and therefore not having the capacity to extend my honesty to others; they spoke to me of having rules which I had failed to outline to those whom I expected to operate within said rules; they spoke to me of putting the responsibility of my wellbeing and happiness into the hands of another who is primarily, and acceptably, out for their own happiness and wellbeing. Because really at the end of the day a breaking of trust is nothing more than taking personally the actions of someone else. Surely if we are able to find the trust within ourselves which knows ‘I am ok, I will do ok, and I will be ok, no matter what I am thrown’, and stay the path of our own set of ethics and values, then we can cease being personally affronted by the actions of someone outside of ourselves, and continue on our way without interruption to our happiness?! You are the only one with whom you will spend 24/7/365 for the rest of your life so it is vital to form this unwavering trust in yourself, if you hope to find a deep sense of peace and contentment.

Without an open and honest discussion from the outset, between yourself and those you are entering into any kind of partnership with, platonic or romantic, none of us have a right to be asserting another lives by this imagined set of dos and don’ts or that a deferral from them constitutes a breaking of trust. We must first find the trust in ourselves to speak of what we need and what we won’t accept before we can begin asking others to stay within our guidelines, and if they want to walk a path outside of them then we need to trust we will be ok, and walk away from that which we find unacceptable and know could cause us damage.

Therefore the ultimate form of trust, the most important version, the one we must work hardest not to break, and the most integral to living a life worthy of trust from others, is the trust we must value and establish within ourselves.

How much do you trust yourself?