With Trust, Rewards Would Be High

The past decade has produced a rich national discussion of what it takes to reconnect citizens with the political process. Unfortuately, that discussion has not been wide enough or powerful enough to override the prevailing cynical view that the country’s stock of so-called “social capital” is in serious decline.

What is needed, one report declared, is a “culture of participation.” That phrase, and that report, came from the National Commission on the Renewal of American Democracy.

Imagine a community where people got involved in their schools, their churches, their neighborhoods and their municipalities simply because that’s the way things are done there. What a tonic for civic life that would be.

This week Father Robert Spitzer, president of Gonzaga University, talked about another kind of culture, a culture of trust.

Spitzer’s remarks were addressed primarily to an organizational environment but they could apply to a community as well: Trust achieves certain things that must happen before we can start thinking about building a culture of participation.

For one thing, says Spitzer, it decreases the fear, the anger, the suspicion - all the counterproductive emotions and behaviors that arise within relationships where people distrust one another’s motives. It also fosters a “peace,” a psychological comfort zone in which reasoned, informed decisions can occur thoughtfully.

Among Spitzer’s listeners on Wednesday, appropriately, were several people involved in the formation of the Health Improvement Partnership, a home-grown experiment in trust.

HIP was born when members of Spokane’s normally competitive health-care industry let their shared purpose - the overall health of the whole community - override their attachment to separate identities.

That kind of suspension of distrust, says HIP Director Dan Baumgarten, produces “the belief that who you will be together can be greater than who you are right now.”

Actually Baumgarten says he sees that happening a lot in the work that HIP is supporting in the community, much of it by people working out of the spotlight, quietly cooperating with others who see and care about the same needs and are interested in pooling their energies.

But anyone who pays attention to the center ring of civic affairs in Spokane knows there is plenty of work to be done before the community’s political climate reflects anything like a culture of trust.

That’s not to say it’s necessary for all people to agree on all questions, only that we try a little harder to understand and respect differing points of view, no matter who is articulating them.

Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter explains why in his book “Civility.”:

“What we agree on, then, provides the background against which we are able to disagree, secure in the knowledge of the commonalities that bind us together. Our shared moral understanding gives us the confidence to be sure that those who oppose us politically are no more out to destroy the polity than we are.”

Well and good, but how do we get there from here?

At this point just about everyone feels a strong urge to observe that, sure enough, the contentiousness and distrust could be cleared up in a hurry if the other guy would just learn to be a little more patient, a little more open-minded and a lot more respectful.

That attitude misses the point.

In an organization, Spitzer says, most people want to achieve, to succeed, to be a winner. That’s a fine motivation, he says, unless it becomes an end in itself in which case those people begin to see others as problems, as rivals to be bested.

Better to look for the good news in others rather than the bad, he says. Better to see others as mysteries with their own strengths and potential to be fulfilled.

That’s a fairly obvious principle to spell out in the abstract but a highly risky one to practice at the personal level. It would help if we could strike an accord that goes something like this: If you will listen to me explain my point of view without interrupting me to argue, I will interpret it as a willingness to understand me but not necessarily a sign that I’ve convinced you to agree.

The rewards could be high.

Spitzer notes that a culture of trust promotes open communication which, in turn, creates a willingness to engage in teamwork.

That would be an appealing outcome in any workplace, church, school or other organization and certainly in any community.

In other words, once the culture of trust is in place, the culture of participation is likely to follow.