TRUST

--Remembering my times as an aspiring Political Scientist--

A few years back (gosh, almost 6) I was majoring in Political Science in Colombia. One of the subjects that I liked the best was Democratic Theory, in which we analyzed why was democracy the so called “perfect” socio-political system. At the end of the course we concluded that it is not so “perfect” but rather the “least worst” of all the political systems throughout history, even when it also is very expensive to maintain (it takes a lot of effort and a lot of giving up from either side, government and society to make it work) and even harder to make it run smoothly. I was very interested with the thoughts of Francis Fukuyama, which at that time was at the hype of his fame, launching neoliberalist studies of the 09/11 conflict, the so called third wave and other subjects.
I am not a fan of neoliberalism, but what struck me as highly interesting was his definition of Social Capital, and how it was the key to achieve, if not Peace, at least a comprehensive and fair sociopolitical environment. Here is an excerpt on what is his definition of Social Capital:
I. What is Social Capital?
While social capital has been given a number of different definitions, many of them refer to manifestations of social capital rather than to social capital itself. The definition I will use in this paper is: social capital is an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals. The norms that constitute social capital can range from a norm of reciprocity between two friends, all the way up to complex and elaborately articulated doctrines like Christianity or Confucianism. They must be instantiated in an actual human relationship: the norm of reciprocity exists in potential in my dealings with all people, but is actualized only in my dealings with my friends. By this definition, trust, networks, civil society, and the like which have been associated with social capital are all epiphenominal, arising as a result of social capital but not constituting social capital itself[1]
Later on we would discuss in class his whole theory about it, but in a nut shell (and paraphrasing my class notes from years past) what he proposed was basically that the social networking that makes up the social capital is the base for a better democracy. How to create/reinforce this network? Through communication and working from bottom up. Every time you talk to a friend, help a neighbor, create trust bonds with your co-workers, peers, clients, vendors, etc, you are contributing effectively in the creation of Social Capital. It had more to do with TRUST (in fact, “Trust” is the title of one of his books about the issue) than to be friends with everybody. And trust—he said and I agree—is built through a good communication, ethical communication.
All in all, that would help explain why is a country like Canada, Japan or even the United States more politically stable, let’s say even peaceful, than …errr Colombia. People here are more involved in their communities, care more about each other as a whole and to a certain extent respect each other’s boundaries. Granted, CSI and Law and Order show us a very violent picture of this same society I am praising, but to be honest, if the subject is worth making a TV show and people still get shocked by it, it is because it is unusual.
I love my country and I am very proud of being Colombian, but the truth is from day one, you learn to trust only your family and your very close friends. For some reason (maybe it is historical, we are after all unwanted children of rejected Spaniards and conquered Indians) we don’t trust ourselves much less other people and are always in survival mode. Try to get as much as you can, fast and don’t look back. There is no way to build a coherent society in this way, and trying to stay in the communication theme, this atmosphere is quite clear in the way we interact and communicate within ourselves. Our verbal oral communication ranges from very close and personal, even when we don’t know a person, to suddenly very cold and formal with our closest ones. It is incoherent and obscure, better said, confusing. Try listening to a Colombian student in a presentation (hehehe I hope I can fight this stereotype) instead of going to the point, we go around in circles and hope that the audience somehow will get the message. If not… dumm gelaufen, too bad. If I was looking for a thesis for my Political Science degree, I’d probably start off with “Verbal and nonverbal misconstructions of the Colombian society: how “la Violencia[2]” started in our words
[1] Fukuyama, Francis http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm August 28, 2006
[2] La Violencia is the most memorable violent period in the Colombian recent history. It spanned from the late 40’s into the fifties and was the precursor of the modern day FARC and ELN guerrillas.