Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sherida Ryan's avatar

Trust may support vulnerability but risk is what defines a trust situation. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem. Trust and risk are indeed intertwined, but it’s the presence of risk—uncertainty about another’s behavior or intentions—that defines a trust situation. If there's no possibility of betrayal, disappointment, or harm, then there's no real "trust" being exercised; there's simply certainty or control. Trust, then, is meaningful only in contexts where the outcome isn't guaranteed.

Vulnerability often arises because trusting someone exposes us to potential consequences—we're opening ourselves up. But that vulnerability, while supported by trust, doesn’t define trust. It's the conscious choice to accept risk based on our judgment of the other’s character, ability, or reliability.

So in short: risk makes trust necessary, and trust makes vulnerability tolerable. Without risk, trust is irrelevant. Without trust, vulnerability becomes unsafe.

Expand full comment
Russell McOrmond's avatar

This feels like you are doing a thought experiment about the opposite of the Ministry of Canadian Heritage.

https://r.flora.ca/p/canadian-heritage

While I personally believe the population of this continent could do that, I'm not convinced it can happen within the settler-colonial context of the "Dominion of Canada" or the so-called "United States". These are sets of institutions that rely on dishonesty about their origin stories and ongoing activities in order to continue to exist. Moving away from virtue signalling performances to actually exhibiting true virtue requires a Truth and Reconcilliation process which hasn't actually started yet (a vast majority of Canadians haven't started the Truth part, which comes before Reconcilliation).

Expand full comment

No posts