The end of trust?

ETHICS
Walter Humes on the professional liars
who are disfiguring society

The 2002 Reith Lectures were given by Baroness Onora O’Neil under the title: 'A Question of Trust'. Few people would now dispute that there is a serious crisis of trust in our society. Lack of trust extends far beyond the deceptions and self-interest of politicians, or the greed and incompetence of bankers, to include a wide range of public and private institutions. The activities of utility companies, supermarkets, media organisations and local government are all regarded with a degree of scepticism, if not downright suspicion. Even the professions – law, medicine, education – are often perceived to be acting more to protect their own interests and status, than to provide a service to the public, particularly when something goes wrong and an inquiry is called for.
     How is this loss of trust to be explained? Richard Sennett in his book 'The Corrosion of Character' (1998) draws attention to several important dimensions of the problem. He identifies the ways in which modern lifestyles undermine the various sources of social stability which, in the past, acted as informal bonds of trust. Perhaps the most critical factor is the short time-frame of much contemporary life. People no longer work in the same job for the whole of their career, weakening any sense of loyalty to one organisation. Their occupational mobility is often linked to geographical mobility so that their commitment to the community in which they live may be tenuous. Personal relationships lack the stability that they used to have, with more people having a series of partners, choosing cohabitation rather than marriage, or opting to live on their own. Building genuine trust takes time: the pace of modern life means that communication is often rushed and the small courtesies which can serve to bind the social fabric are forgotten. The rapid advance of technology in all its forms serves as a metaphor for the loss of the personal in social exchanges.
     But it is in the field of politics that the most damaging forces undermining trust are to be found. More than 20 years ago the American political theorist Murray Edelman published a book called 'Constructing the Political Spectacle', in which he argued that perception, impression and image had become much more important in government than the substance of specific policies. What people believed to be the case mattered more than what was actually happening on the ground. Moreover, the language in which policies were presented was a critical factor in their perceived success. Political 'spin', drawing heavily on the techniques of advertising and public relations, came into its own and a whole army of advisers, consultants, press officers and lobbyists found their dark arts much in demand.
     The trouble with these exponents of the merits of presentation over substance is that they have been around too long. Members of the public are now much more aware of the methods used by the various brands of professional liar to misrepresent the world. They no longer have any faith in 'consultation exercises'; they are unimpressed by claims of 'customer care'; they laugh scornfully when they are offered a 'helpline'; claims of 'transparency' are met with derision; and as for 'quality', the more it is invoked, the less likelihood it is of being delivered. The result is that there is now a deep vein of mistrust throughout the public and private spheres. Even official statistics on a wide range of important matters (crime levels, hospital waiting times, school exclusions, drug rehabilitation programmes, immigration) are not accepted at face value. There is no quick or easy solution because those who have led us into this ethical cul de sac are, in too many cases, still in positions of power and are incapable of seeing a way out. Their moral bankruptcy is at the heart of our cultural crisis.
     Finally, one of the most striking features of the furore over politicians' expenses was their total failure to understand the strength and depth of public feeling on the matter: as several commentators remarked, they simply did not 'get it'. They assumed that with a little adjustment to the rules and a token apology, confidence would be restored and all would be well again. In reacting in this way, the political class demonstrated how out of touch they were, not only with the public mood but also with the social shifts that are reconfiguring the way we live. Sennett's final words should serve as a stark reminder of the possible consequences: 'a regime which provides human beings with no deep reasons to care about one another cannot long preserve its legitimacy'.