This essay looks at the subject of trust and society, with society, in this case, referring to human society. The thoughts expressed here came about from a question that was posed on what the reasons might be, why there could be a lack of trust, within society, and how that can be changed so that trust exists within a society. The assumption here being that trust is a desirable state.

A good place to begin would be to consider what a society is. A basic definition that can be given for society, is that it is a unit that is made up of a collection of individuals. Following on from this, human society can then be described as a society that is made up of human beings, who live within the geographical boundaries defined by the society.

Humans, like other species, tend to be involved in actions. One could even say that we are involved with one action or another all through our lives. These actions tend not to happen in a void, and so affect others, which could be other human beings or objects found in the natural environment. As such the actions can be said to be interactions between the person carrying out the act and those that it affects. Interactions have, in some cases, also been used as the base, used to describe society. In this definition, society is said to be a collection of interactions.

These interactions that people partake in can be divided into two categories, broadly speaking. These are those that involve or affect other individuals and those that involve or affect a group of people, which could also include all of society.

Actions, carried out by humans and other living things, tend to be done with a purpose. In addition, as was mentioned earlier, they also tend to have an impact on other entities, other than the person who carries them out. An assumption that would be safe to make, would be that the purpose behind conscious actions is that they bring some sort of benefit to those who carry them out. Putting it another way, the assumption is that there is a benefit we get, whenever we act.

Combining the issues of benefits that are gotten from action, as well as that acts tend to affect others, other than the person who initiates them, raises the question of whether those who are affected also gain benefit from the act. The two possibilities with this situation are that those others, affected by the action of an individual, either gain some benefits or they do not.

Another assumption could be made, at this point, which is that those who do not gain any benefit from an act, would tend to be in a position where they might not be content with it, which would mean that they would tend to be in strife. Putting this another way would be to say that, those who do not get benefit(s) from actions that affect them would tend not to be at peace with the situation, as the opposite of strife would be peace.

As society is a collection of people, the states that people are, within the society, would tend to affect the state for the whole of the society. By this, I mean that if using the example of peace, a person is not at peace, the state of peace for the whole society would be affected. This would mean that the more people, within the society, are not in a state of peace, the more the state of the society’s peace is affected detrimentally.

Assuming that the ideal state for living things is that are not put in strife, or at least do not persist in that state of strife, set a goal for society. This is that peace is maintained, or strived for, as this would mean that the society itself would be in peace. Such a goal would demand knowledge of what could possibly lead to society, or in particular the members of society, not to be in peace.

It could be said that one of the main goals of all living things is that they live with the security that they will survive. Immediate or primary security is provided when they have access to the basic needs of their physical bodies. These include sufficient nutrition, clean water, in the case of most animals, as well as shelter. These basic needs could be classified as the primary security layer. Added to this are what could be described as the secondary security layer, which in the case of people would include, amongst others, access to information, or education, on how not only how to gain access to the items in the basic security layer, but also how to ensure that there is a constant supply of them, as well as access to healthcare when the body or mind is not well.

In addition to the lack of peace or insecurity which people tend to experience when actions by others affect them detrimentally, they would also tend not to be at peace, when they do not have access to these basic security needs.

The achievements of goals normally require that someone or a body is given the responsibility to achieve this. The same would be the case, if the goal of achieving and maintaining peace, within a society, is to be reached. The world we live in today has been divided, geographically, into individual supposedly independent States or countries. As States or countries are a collection of individuals, they too could be considered as a society. The task of achieving and maintaining peace, inside States or countries, is normally given to the State or its government.

A key tool that is used in the resolution of disputes is agreements. This is because they form a point of reference. They are normally made up of two or more parties, and what they do, in essence, is set out conditions that provide conditions on what those involved in the agreement can do. The aim of most agreements is that they bring benefit to those involved in them.

Society, when we take a close look at it, is made up of a wide number of agreements. These range from the tool that we use to communicate, language, which could be described as a set of agreements that creates understanding between people, to others that include the agreements that define how we relate with others. Examples of this are the relationship between parents and children, between the young and the old, or between men and women, all of which lead to the formation of cultures and norms.

Worthy of consideration is the fact that not all the agreements are explicitly declared. That is not all agreements that exist within society are stated either in writing or through the spoken word. Some, like the laws that people are expected to abide by, within society, are normally explicitly stated, whilst others, like how to be a parent or sibling, or friend, are not.

Agreements, explicit or non-explicit, tend to come with problems. A problem that is common to both, comes with the possible change that could occur with time. This places a demand on those who are part of the agreement to be aware of the current situation of the agreement, something that affects even explicit agreements like laws. There then is the issue of interpretation, which is brought about by the fact that individuals translate the information that they receive in their own way, something could end up with conclusions that are different from those that others involved in the agreements could come up with.

Another problem that agreements could face, particularly those that do not require the written endorsement of the parties involved, is that there could be the assumption that a person is involved in a relationship, which they might not believe themselves to be in.

The duty that the State has, creates a relationship between it and the individual within it. A method of providing clarity, to this relationship, would be through the use of agreements. From the point of view of agreements, the terms on the side of the State are that it provides security to its members. On the side of the individual, the terms would be that they comply with the systems that are created by the State, which are intended to provide security, which ultimately leads to peace.

A commonly used frame of reference to describe this relationship between the State and the individual is rights and obligations. In this sense, rights are ascribed to the individual, who then has obligations that they have to fulfill to get those rights. The assumption here is that if the rights are designed in such a way that they provide security for everyone, and everyone abides by the obligations that are expected from each of those rights, society, as a whole, would be at peace.

For agreements, however, to achieve their intentions there is the requirement that both sides of the agreement comply with the terms stated in the agreement. What this does is produce expectations.

As can be imagined, expectations are either met or not met. In the case where they are met, on a regular basis, by a party that is involved in agreements, trust is built by others in that person or institution. Conversely, when a person or institution does not meet the expectations that have been placed on them, from the agreements they have entered into, a lack of trust is built in them.

One could say that trust tends to provide security, and conversely a lack of trust insecurity. Trust or the lack of it, with most people, tends to create cycles that reinforce them. If we consider the lack of trust, what it could, be when someone has it and is going into an agreement with it is, to enter those agreements without enough of a commitment. This, in turn, leads to the increased possibility of not fulfilling those agreements, which when not fulfilled reinforces the feeling of a lack of trust. The same could also apply in the opposite situation, where trust leads to a firm commitment, which then increases the chances of fulfilling the agreements, which then goes to increase trust.

One of the questions that we began with was what to do when trust, in the relationship between the State and the individual, has been broken or does not exist. My view is that when this happens, there has to be a review of the agreements that have been entered into. The point of this is to bring clarity to the relationship, by reminding the parties involved what their obligations or expectations are, in the agreement.

This might introduce an element of change if one or both parties in the agreement believe that the terms of the agreement no longer bring about the benefit that is sought. The endpoint of this process of revisiting the agreement should in either case be that the parties involved come out with an up-to-date understanding of the terms of their agreement.

In the relationship between the State and the individual, considering that there might be many of those individuals, an essential part of this would be for the State to make this information of the agreement clear and accessible to everyone. What could also possibly help here is giving a good amount of time for people to understand the agreements, as well as come up with suggestions, as to how they can be made better. Once this has been done, the duties and obligations should become clear, and all that should be done would be for every side to keep to their expectations.