One of the necessary ingredients of a workable marriage is trust. “Trust” is defined as “confidence in or reliance on some quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a statement.” It is also defined as “the quality of being trustworthy; fidelity; loyalty; trustiness.”
More immediately applicable to the marital situation are the definitions of the verb, “to trust”: “to have faith or confidence that something desired is or will be the case,” and “to invest with a charge; to confide or entrust something to the care or disposal of the other.”
The trouble with these definitions is that they imply that trust can be unilateral, as when the infant trusts his mother because he is tiny and she is large and he has no other choice. Trust in marriage is different. It is formed on the basis of exchanges of behavior (and hence, information) which go on all the time between the spouses. When the spouses, by their behavior, are communicating clearly to each other, there is no “noise” on the line between them; then there is trust, because they read each other clearly. Each spouse can understand and accept the significance, the intent, the values, and the meanings of the other’s behavioral repertoire; and if there is any doubt, he feels free to clarify the matter immediately.
Trust is not something that one or the other spouse has as a personal quality or character trait; it is present between the two if it is warranted by their exchange of behavior. Naturally, during stress, unclear communication, or confusion, the trust existing between a couple may temporarily diminish, but the experience may fortify trust over the long run if they successfully handle the situation. Thus, trust is developed over a period of time as a result of experience. If spouse A’s behavior generally is consistent and clear, spouse B will feel trust because he has learned to depend on this behavior. When two people trust one another each can relax, for he knows what kind of behavior to expect from the other; mutual confidence develops.
Trust has to be distinguished from labeling. If one labels one’s spouse as ungenerous and unkind, one may be said to “trust” him always to behave selfishly and unkindly. This attitude, which might be called negative trust, is a huge barrier to efforts by one or both spouses to change or improve their behavior. Unlike the positive trust we have been discussing, it is not based on clearly communicative exchanges of behavior.
“Love, honor, and obey … ’til death do us part” is an unrealistic part of the Christian marriage vow because it suggests that trust is static. In the mystique of the marriage ceremony, spouses assume that by saying “I do” they have signed a rigid and unalterable pact, and therefore they expect trust from each other. Trust is not created by expectations. It develops as a result of mutual shared experiences which are clarified between the spouses. The Christian marital vow is based on the fallacy that nothing will change. Trust in marriage does not mean, “I am certain that you, my darling spouse, will always be exactly the same as 1 estimated you to be the day we were married.” Trust is the result of a flexible, developmental bargain between spouses which endures because it is able to accommodate change.
The word “trust” originally came from the Scandinavian language and meant “to comfort,” “to console,” “to confide in.” It seems to have first appeared about the ninth or tenth century in a Nordic society in which men and women lived, in a state of relative equality, in an environment requiring a desperate struggle for survival. To “trust” then meant to give comfort and cheer when needed. It had nothing to do with estimating another’s behavior. This original definition of the word represents the first step toward Sullivan’s definition of love.
The modem meaning of “trust” is quite different from its original significance. Today spouses who trust have learned to depend on each other’s behavior because experience has taught them that their relationship is predictable. But they do not necessarily demonstrate comforting or succoring behavior, simply because behavior of this sort may be foreign to their personalities, experience, values, or mutual expectations.
If a wife commits adultery and is questioned about it by her husband, should she lie and attempt to deceive him further? Or should she admit the adultery, openly explain the circumstances and causes, and tell him whether it was a single chance occurrence or whether it reflects feelings which make the continuance of the marriage undesirable? If either spouse wishes the relationship to grow, it is essential that they both be truthful, even at the risk of painful scenes or possible violence. Decisions about continuing the relationship can only be made by both parties if both know the truth of the situation. A person remaining with his spouse for expediency’s sake-for instance, a mother with five children who stays with her breadwinner because she has no hope of gainful employment, and who wants nothing from the marriage except financial support-may lie in order to continue the relationship as it is. But those who wish to improve their marriage and foster growth and trust through the relationship must overcome their fear of honesty, because every lie begets another lie. It is always necessary to cover the cover-up, and in a close relationship, the attempts at deception are likely to be unsuccessful, for the other spouse is only deceived if he or she wishes to be.