5. Trust in the Face of Power

As I worked on the ideas in Churn, I felt certain things were becoming clear: that trust was indeed a critical ingredient of successful diversity in many of the everyday settings and relationships of our lives; that wiseness— seeing full humanity in human difference— was a mindset for winning trust between people of otherwise wary identities; that giving people the opportunity to tell you about their values, their needs, and their own agendas amounted to wiseness and was a usable strategy; that when giving feedback across identity divides, it was especially important to convey faith in the other party’s potential; and that follow-through, giving real help in achieving these things, was just as essential.

It wasn’t that I believed these things, even if implemented all together, would always and definitely eliminate diversity tension. Rather, my growing conviction was that they could reduce these tensions— provide traction against them— in our relationships and everyday settings and thus expand the approaches we had to address this central American challenge.

Was wiseness a strategy for everyone? Would people with less enfranchised identities, those occupying lesser roles in the Wilkerson play, be comfortable using it?

For these people— women, minorities, gays, white men in diversity workshops, low-income earners— hearing that they should offer “trust” in diverse settings could trigger more “remembering” than “forgetting.” And there waiting for them is a compelling argument: “How can I trust people from groups that have done bad things to my group, people who benefit from advantages won by those bad things, people who often justify those advantages with dehumanizing stereotypes of my group, people who often see my group’s progress not as a good thing, or as justice-restoring, but as a zero-sum loss? Wouldn’t being ‘wise’ just make me more vulnerable to them— women to men, Blacks to whites, gays to straights?” And their churn wouldn’t stop there. It would also ask: “Why does responsibility for building trust in these settings fall to me? Shouldn’t it be first the responsibility of the more empowered?

In answer to the question “Is wiseness— offering trust to beget trust— for everyone?”: I’m afraid it’s too much to expect from the less powerfully situated in a diverse setting, especially early on. It simply makes them too vulnerable. And it could well seem impossible. In describing what he saw as President Barack Obama’s exceptional ability to offer trust to the American public, including white Americans, the African American journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote, “The vast majority of us [African Americans] are, necessarily, too crippled by our defences to ever consider such a proposition.

As a general rule, for diverse settings to be wise, it’s best for the more empowered to move first— the teacher before the students, the manager before the employees, the doctor before the patient, the parents before the children, the minister before the parishioners, the white students before the small number of minorities in a classroom, the coach before the athletes, the CEO before the rank file, the Black professor of African American history before the minority of whites in the class, the board before the organization’s administration, and so on. This isn’t to leave the less empowered off the hook. At some point, they, too must be wise— able to see full humanity in difference and put their trust in a setting. The point here—considering the identity power dynamics in a setting— is about who goes first in making wiseness a normative standard. The answer is clear: the more empowered. Most often that means the leadership.

Still, Mooijman feels they raise an important caution for leaders, managers, and people in more powerfully situated roles in society: “Having power acts like a double-edged sword when it comes to trust development. Trusting others is particularly effective for promoting reciprocal trust, whereas distrusting others is particularly destructive for promoting reciprocal trust.