Dare to trust others

Dare to trust others

A trust based on reason and not on emotion: it is the condition for true relationships, assures the mediator

Why does our time need trust?

The current changes generate a feeling of fear, conducive to the emergence of safe speeches. Although, if we look closely, we are lucky to live in a rather privileged country. In business, the increase in mistrust is linked to the evolution of work. In the past, the boss guaranteed a job for life. We relied on him as a feudal lord who assured us security. This is no longer the case. And while we rejoice in the decline of paternalism, we want the authority to no longer be so solid. Many continue to live their lives by seeking the same relationship of dependence, a boss, a leader. This infantile confidence makes the bed of blind faith, of submission. What our age needs is a confidence based more on reason and less on emotion.

What does that mean ?

Take the example of social networks. This is a tool with which we could raise mountains. But what do we share? Especially fleeting emotions - we are indignant, we denounce, we rejoice, we cry - that do not lead to any collective action, with rare exceptions. One feels a form of trust related to having vibrated together: it is emotional trust. Rational trust is a builder link, based on projects leading to social innovation.

 

How to promote this type of link?

It is first of all about modifying our conception of the human: to privilege that of Rousseau, for whom the man is fundamentally good and trustworthy, to that of Hobbes, for whom the man is a wolf for man, animated by fear and desire, and fundamentally attached to his interests to the detriment of his fellows. It is this view that politicians use to justify their power or fanatics to justify terrorism. At the risk of shocking you, it seems to me that this misanthropy is also favored by psychologizing speeches which believe that behind all our deeds are hidden designs. Seeing evil everywhere can only lead to withdrawal, to everyone for themselves. The reality is that, even if lies and crime exist, we can generally trust that people tell us without fearing the worst. Recognizing this allows for more constructive relationships.

What do you blame the psys?

For many of them, there is an unfortunate tendency to pinpoint "pathological" behaviors, to describe as "toxic" relationships that are sometimes simply lacking benchmarks, to designate torturers and victims when everyone is responsible for relationship. In business, this has dramatic effects: we track down the narcissistic pervert when, what is missing, it is a rational approach - what mediation brings - or more solidarity. How can we hope to improve social dialogue if we are convinced that the other person needs to be cared for or that his function makes him someone who is malicious? Deciding to trust is to decide not to prejudge the other.

Trust is not easy when you have already been betrayed ...

You're right, it's not easy. The mistake is to trust what we feel at first sight for the other - an attraction or mistrust - without trying to go further. It is not a question of mistrusting our feelings, but of sifting them through reason - what exactly do I feel? Why ? - to take the measure of our projections: the other reminds me of someone but it is not him, dig a little. Trust requires to risk oneself in the relationship: to put one's prejudices to the test, to go to meet the other. I give you a recent anecdote, representative of what happens too often in case of conflict: in my son's school, a parent of a student shocked by a statement by a teacher chose to send a letter directly to the academic inspection. Why not try to meet him to solve the problem through dialogue? There is cowardice in this form of action, confused with bravery.

To trust the other one therefore presupposes to have confidence in oneself?

Yes and no. Yes, because you have to be autonomous enough to create bonds of trust: not wanting to own the other, not wanting to conform to our expectations, accept that it can change. Because, then, it would not be confidence but dependence. And no, because the causal links between self-confidence and trust in the other resemble the story of the egg and the hen: one engenders the other and vice versa. If I learn to trust the other - recognizing that he, like most people, has good intentions, that his views, like mine, are legitimate, but happen to him, just like me, being awkward inadvertently, ignorantly, rather than maliciously - so I can also more easily assert who I am and what I want. Rather than fading behind his desires, I have the opportunity to open my projects and ask for his help. And together we become more efficient and can share the joy of our achievements.