Many of our support systems seem to be set up as if trust issues are the exception rather than the rule. And if they’re there, it’s part of a pathology, something damaged by unfortunate life events – maybe they’ve been abused or are paranoid or mandated – but it’s seen as an extra complication.
And we generally don’t build our services with the expectation people have had bad experiences with other services. Or with our service. Or with us personally. At the same time we may have signs and barriers and policies in place that signal we don’t trust them.
Yet it’s normal to be unsure of strangers and the advice they offer. Challenges with interpersonal interactions and navigating relationships are common, almost compulsory. Everyone has been hurt by someone, whether from calculated cruelty or oblivious insensitivity. We often doubt, judge and criticise ourselves and others, and fill in the blanks with questions and assumptions. It’s what people do.
What’s more, if our interventions are to be successful we want people to think for themselves and make their own considered decisions because we won’t always be there. And in the scheme of a whole life we rarely are. We also want people to have healthy boundaries out in the real world and that real world includes us.
What if we set up systems with the expectation trust is not a given, and people have every right to be wary of us from the beginning? How would we adapt or adjust our intake and reception, our assessment and triage, our treatment and referrals? When we start from the position that trust is earned, we’re more likely to build in the processes that allow that to happen. For both of us. Trust is, after all, a two way street.
Helen Mentha 