A Definition of Trust
Trust is a contract between two people, in which the trusted makes a
promise to the truster to act in a certain way. The promise is a
gift, and the trusted is under an obligation for as long as the
trust holds. The gift is usually reciprocated, though, and so is
beneficial for both sides.
A broken trust is a broken promise. Someone who is trustworthy is
worth trusting, meaning that he or she is not likely to break the
trust. Someone untrustworthy is someone who does break trusts.
A trust involves two people. It requires not only the statement of
trust on the part of the truster, but also the acknowledgement of
the trust -- the agreement to the contract -- on the part of the
trusted. The way we talk about trust, though, usually leaves
implicit the latter requirement of the trust. If I am housesitting
for a professor, he might say "I trust you will not have parties
here while I'm away," or "I trust you not to have parties here while
I'm away." My acceptance of the trust is implied. An explicit
response is only required if I reject the trust.
If I had an alternative view of trust, as something given by the
truster, and involving nothing on the part of the trusted, then I
would take the professor's statement as one of expectation -- "I
expect that you will not have parties here while I'm away." This
prediction might be reasonable or foolish, but either way, I am
under no obligation from the trust. In that case, even if I don't
respond with an explicit rejection, I also don't see myself as
accepting any sort of contract.
Frustration arises when the trusted is not aware of the obligation
that the truster expects him to fulfill. This can happen in two
ways. The first (described above) is what happens when a statement
of trust is explicit, but the trusted's understanding of the
word "trust" is equivalent to "expect." However, this is probably
not often an innocent mistake. Most people know that trust implies
obligation, and so for me (in response to my professor's statement
of trust) to say that I was under no obligation would require a
perverse obtuseness or deliberate deceit. Even if one uses the
word "trust" to mean "expect" in one's own vocabulary, candor
requires making explicit the rejection of the other's trust.
The second way that trust is frustrated is when the statement of
trust is not made explicit. There may be some trusts that are
implied by society, though, so this is a complicated issue. For
example, I trust that when I walk down Main Street, the woman
walking towards me will not strike me with her purse. It's possible
that this is just an expectation -- I expect that she will not
strike me with her purse -- but I think that it is something more.
Random violence is unacceptable in our society. The trust not to
commit random violence is one of the terms of our social contract.
It is an implicit trust. However, two people might have different
views of the social contract. If I trust my friend to provide for
my meals while I stay at her house, the terms of the social contract
are much less obvious than those prohibiting random violence. I am
trusting my friend to do something for me -- I think she is
obligated to do it -- but if the statement is not made explicitly
and she does not fulfill the obligation, is she at fault for not
fulfilling the obligation, or was I mistaken in thinking that the
obligation was implied? If there was an obligation implied by the
social contract, then she is at fault and has broken the trust,
either deliberately or as a result of ignorance. If there was no
obligation implied, then I was wrong in thinking that we had a trust.
One can see how "trust" might come to be used synonymously
with "expect." If the people I interact with are trustworthy, then
all of those things I trust them to do, I also expect them to do.
However, even when "trust" is used where "expect" would seem
appropriate, it retains the connotation of a contract. For example,
to say "I expect that the sun will rise tomorrow" is different than
to say "I trust the sun to rise tomorrow." The first seems to have
more detachment on the part of the speaker, whereas in the second
case, I imagine the speaker would feel betrayed if the sun did not
rise, and would be angry at someone or something. Perhaps also, our
expectation of the sun's motion is so consistent that it acquires
the character of a trust, because people who are trustworthy are
consistent. Because the sun fulfills our expectations, we consider
it trustworthy, and begin to feel as though it is obligated to
fulfill our expectations. Just because someone or something is
consistent, though, does not mean he or she or it is obligated to
continue being so.
With this understanding of trust, then, there are a few principles
to be aware of:
1) When someone states trust in you, he or she probably believes
that you are under obligation to fulfill it. To give no response
implies acceptance of the trust. If you do not intend to fulfill
the trust, then you should explicitly reject the trust. If you
accept the trust and break it, then you are at fault. If you do so
repeatedly, you are untrustworthy -- not worthy of being trusted.
2) If you think a trust is implied by the social situation, be
careful that you have not mistaken the social contract. If you have
mistaken the social contract -- the trust you expect is not actually
implied by it -- then no trust has been made. The person who
violates your expectation does not violate a trust if none exists.
If you have not mistaken the social contract, but have reason to
suspect that the person you trust as part of that contract is
unaware of the trust, then it may be a social responsibility to make
the trust explicit.
3) Be careful not to assume that someone is under an obligation to
do something just because he or she does it consistently. While
some beneficial things that people do consistently are part of a
social contract, not all of them are, and it would be wrong to blame
them for not holding up an obligation that does not exist.