Why is there a question mark at the end of this posting title? Ideally, there wouldn’t be when we’re talking about trust–especially “radical trust” which has been talked about much in the past several months. And radical trust is what I want to talk about.
Just yesterday I read an article in SLJ called “A Matter of (Radical Trust).” Though I understand that the writer of this article was coming mostly from perspective of a public school setting, my reaction was one of “did he just say what I thought he said?” …and the sounds of a thousand balloons deflating could have been piped in as the soundtrack for the moment I read the last sentence. The writer begins his last paragraph by saying “…let me state very clearly that radical trust is just not going to work.” (Once again insert a thousand balloons deflating). If I recall correctly, the word “radical” is based in the word “root” which means foundation, fundamental, essential. So, essential (radical) trust is just not going to work? If this is the thougtht, then the brakes are pulled on 2.0, on building any type of deep relationship or partnership with library users and–perhaps more drastically–those who are not users (which we want to reach)–including the youth we serve.
I commented to Helene, a colleague, yesterday after reading the article that it made me think that the undercurrent of the message that is being sent here is like saying
“Sure, I trust you completely…well, except when you may have your own thoughts, or when you color outside the lines, or step outside of this little hermetically sealed bubble we’ve prepared for you…”
The authors suggested “moderated trust.” Isn’t this what has kept us at a snail’s pace while the 2.0 world blazed ahead?
Ultimately we can’t take leaps of faith (or trust) when we focus on what might jump up at us in mid-air!