Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between courage, vulnerability, and trust. Each concept will be defined separately and relationships between each will be explored. Theories and models containing one or more of the concepts will be discussed, including from the fields of health education, human development, and business. Examples of courage, vulnerability and trust will be described. Finally, the relationship between the three concepts will be described including their interdependence and the importance of each will be proposed for optimal human functioning.
Courage
Courage has been an admirable virtue across different cultures and throughout time. Secular civilizations, religions, and modern societal frameworks of different types reward courageous acts. It has also been hypothesized that leading a life of courage lends itself to personal satisfaction and freedom from regret (Lopez, Pedrotti, & Snyder, 2018: Wisdom and Courage). Courage is broadly defined as the willingness to continue a course of action despite the potential for or perception of personal risk, fear, or difficulty to obtain a more desirable outcome. Different contexts convoke different flavors of courage, each with their own perceived demands and costs.
Physical courage, sometimes referred to as valor, is characterized by a willingness to take physically risk for a cause. The possessor of valor need not complete a physical task to be acting in a physically courageous way, rather it is the perception, real or imagined, of physical risk that must be present. It is this perception of risk, outside of normally accepted hazard, that creates the possibility for courage. Indeed, driving an automobile is generally not thought of as courageous, despite the inherent, and probably because of the accepted, risk involved. Despite this, examples of physical courage are plentiful. The men and women of the U.S. armed forces are commonly referred to as “the brave”, and even popular culture is amassed with examples including the latest First Man; a portrayal of Neil Armstrong’s journey to becoming the first man to step foot on the moon.
Other historical acts of courage, travers multiple types of courage. Figures such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela are household names, due to their acts of moral and physical courage. Each of them endured physical risks, while choosing to defend a cause they felt strongly towards, despite contention. Expressing moral and physical courage simultaneously is sometimes referred to as civil courage; or “brave behavior accompanied by anger and indignation that intends to enforce societal and ethical norms without considering one’s own social costs” (Greitemeyer, Osswald, Fischer, & Fray, 2007). A profound example is the suicide of a Mahayana Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc. During the Vietnam war Duc publicly denounced the oppressive South Vietnamese government immediately before setting himself ablaze while fellow monks, military men, and photographers looked on (Harding, 2016).
Moral courage often elicits thoughts of well known acts such as those of the above named, but morally courageous acts are not always so famous or profound. Choosing to stand up for what one believes to be ethically right, when what you have to say might be uncomfortable, can be considered an act of moral courage. A child standing up for a peer when friends are teasing them would be an act of moral courage.
Vital courage and spiritual courage are two distinct types of courage identified by researchers, and encountered by patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Vital courage is the type of courage summoned by a patient facing an illness. Lopez, Pedrotti, and Snyder bring attention to the experience of vital courage by caregivers and healthcare providers through their vicarious experiences (2018). Spiritual courage is distinct from the other varieties of courage identified in that it involves an element of acknowledgement of lack of control. Sanders and Sardello describe spiritual courage as the ability to “go through illness with a true and abiding sense of individuality of soul and spirit, even if we must undergo the humiliation of treatments that tend to treat us as abstractions rather than individual human beings” (Sanders. C., Sardello, R., 2015). Glenn Richardson illustrates a similar concept, the Q-Nexus, as helping one to “find strength beyond normal capacity to thrive” (2018).
If vital courage is one’s ability to face the challenges inherent to physiological illness, then psychological courage is the cerebral equivalent. Exercising psychological courage can be seen when an individual admits themselves to a recovery program after years of suffering from addiction, a battered spouse leaves a relationship for the last time, or when one enters treatment for anxiety or phobias. These acts require courage because the future is unknown (Putman, 1997), and living with uncertainty, no matter how bad the certain is can be paralyzing as the common phrase ‘the devil you know’ exemplifies. An individual’s identity may be at risk in situations such as these and choosing to change takes courage.
Vulnerability
Vulnerability is the situation of being that exposes an individual or group to potential for unfavorable is undesirable outcomes. From inception throughout life, humans’ level of vulnerability varies. As embryos and infants, we are entirely dependent on our mothers and caretakers. As children, we begin to gain independence and choice. This may reduce vulnerability due to depending on another for physiological needs but increases opportunity to willfully engage in behaviors that increase vulnerability. Children choose to climb trees, talk back to parents, and engage in peer relationships; all of which create different types of vulnerability.
Vulnerability, usually referred to as risk, is often cited as an antecedent to courage (SOURCES). In order to undertake courage, there needs to be a threat, whether perceived or real, that motivates choice. Often, the threat is not mitigated by being courageous, but rather the potential for a more preferable outcome drives the courageous choice. The examples above of children as they learn all create different types of vulnerability and engaging in each exemplifies different types of courage. Climbing a tree might be considered physical courage; talking back to your parents might be psychological courage if you are learning how they will respond and standing up to a bully is morally courageous. Brené Brown describes “vulnerability as the catalyst for courage, compassion, and connection” (Brown, 2018).
Trust
Trust like courage is context specific. An multi discipline analysis of trust identified at least four forms of trust; deterrence-based trust, calculus-based trust, relational trust, and institutional trust (Rousseau, et. al, 1998). Deterrence-based trust can be thought of as confidence in another’s behavior based on belief that the other perceives the cost to behave in an unpredictable or unfavorable way would be detrimental. Institutional trust is the belief that systems put in place to ensure equity and fairness are sufficient. Both Deterrence-based trust and institutional trust have been proposed to not be trust at all, but rather low levels of distrust, and an antecedent to calculus or relationship trust, respectively (Rousseau, et. al, 1998).
Calculus-based trust is trust based on external information about the credibleness or another, through reputation, licensure or otherwise. Relational trust is built through interactions with another and repeated fulfilled of expectations (Rousseau, et. al, 1998). This type of trust involves significant emotion but is not merely seen with significant others and friends. Long term employees may feel loyalty to their employer for the history of fair treatment, and employers may reward consistent employees with career advancement opportunities. Both of these are based on relational trust.
For purposes of this discussion the focus will be on relational trust, defined as a trustor’s belief in the positive intentions and lack of negative intentions of the trustee. Relational trust can be generalized and indeed some scholars define relational trust and general trust as separate and distinct but interdependent. For example, trust begins to form early in life when a child experiences a stable dependable relationship with a care-giver (Lopez, et. al, 2018).
Relational trust is built on mutual experiences between two parties in which the trustor has experienced confirmation of the belief that the trustee has good intentions for the trustor. Charles Feltman describes trust as “choosing to make something important to you vulnerable to the actions of someone else” (2009). Brené Brown further breaks down trust into the components of boundaries, reliability, accountability, confidentiality, integrity, lack of judgement, and generosity (Brown, 2018). According to Brown, setting appropriate boundaries allows us to be authentic. Reliability, accountability, and integrity allow us to depend on others and others to depend on us. Confidentiality includes trustors perceptions that the trustee acknowledges and respects confidentiality in not only their interactions, but in general. Having a lack of judgement, starting with oneself allows a feeling of safety and opportunity to be vulnerable, and generosity is needed to avoid negative presumption about others and foster positive assumptions, further allowing for vulnerability.
Relational trust is necessarily reciprocal in nature; the experience of being trusted, demonstrated by the trustor as a willingness to be vulnerable, tends to increase the trustee’s willingness to trust (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005), and influenced by the amount of general trust an individual holds; higher levels of general trust are associated with a greater propensity to have relational trust (Robbins, 2016). General trust, sometimes called social trust, is an individual’s bias toward belief in others propensity to act in ways they would consider to be trustworthy. Relational trust is specific to the trustee and to context, while general trust is broad and not specific to another party or to a specific context (Rousseau, 1998).
Discussion: Trust, Vulnerability, Courage
Vulnerability and trust are inherent in courage. The choice to act courageously is made with the belief, or trust, that there is potential for a more desirable outcome that can be influenced by the courageous behavior. The component of risk is nearly, but not entirely universal in definitions of courage. Considering the prevalence of risk as a component of courage, it can be argued a willingness to be vulnerable then, is necessary to be courageous. Trust and vulnerability to are interdependent and mutually reciprocal. In Rousseau et al’s review of trust across disciplines, they note the most common component of the definition of trust is the “willingness to be vulnerable” (Rousseau, et al. 1998). What are the implications for this in our relationships, our work, and our societies?
Researchers, philosophers, mental health workers, and others declare connection to be an important component to human fulfillment. Belonging is acknowledged as the third level of human needs by Maslow’s original hierarchy of needs (SOURCE). General trust allows individuals to take risks in social situations, to allow measured vulnerability and courage to grow. Through successful experiences of courage, individuals are further encouraged to engage.
We honor courage because it exemplifies the best that the human character has to offer. A courageous individual must acknowledge that some situation is imperfect, assess the risks and potential benefits of attempts at change, and decide that the risk of improvement is worth it. It seems easy to conclude also that acts of courage are undertaken with hope for betterment of more than oneself, but for others as well. If the desire for advancement or improvement as a group is not at the heart of what it means to evolve as humans, I don’t know what is.
