Love Your Neighbor

Steps Toward Restoring Trust in a Disconnected World

Before we talk about trust in institutions, we need to talk about something more fundamental: we have stopped living in community with one another. Americans are more isolated than at any point in modern history. Robert Putnam documented the early warning signs two decades ago in Bowling Alone, tracing the collapse of civic associations, neighborhood gatherings, and the informal social fabric that once connected strangers into neighbors. The trend has only accelerated. The U.S. Surgeon General declared loneliness and social isolation a public health epidemic in 2023, noting that the health consequences of disconnection rival those of smoking fifteen cigarettes a day.

This is not just an American problem. In 2018, the United Kingdom appointed the world’s first Minister for Loneliness—a government post dedicated entirely to the crisis of social disconnection. The appointment made international headlines, but the underlying reality was grimly ordinary: one in four British adults reported feeling lonely some or all of the time. Five years later, the UK, Scottish, and Welsh governments continue to dedicate resources to the issue, focusing on reducing stigma, understanding what interventions actually work, and placing connections and communities at the heart of public policy. The fact that a major Western democracy concluded it needed a cabinet-level minister to address loneliness tells us something about the depth of the crisis.

The political consequences of this isolation are becoming impossible to ignore. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has argued that the epidemic of loneliness is actively fueling political polarization, observing that “there’s a lot of things that unite Americans that we refuse to see, and one of those things is the way that many of us are increasingly feeling very lonely, very isolated and increasingly disconnected.” When people feel cut off from their neighbors and their communities, they become vulnerable to narratives of grievance and division. Loneliness does not just erode well-being. It erodes the social foundation on which liberal democracies depends.

We eat alone more often. We know fewer of our neighbors by name. We spend more hours in digital spaces that simulate community without delivering the trust, vulnerability, and accountability that real relationships require. Churches, fraternal organizations, bowling leagues, PTA meetings—the institutions that once created the connective tissue of daily life—have seen membership plummet for decades.

This is not a side note in the story of institutional distrust. It is the story. When people do not live in community—when they do not know their neighbors, do not break bread together, do not depend on one another in the small daily ways that build relational trust—they lose the capacity to trust anything beyond their own household. Institutions become abstractions. Government becomes “them.” And every failure, real or perceived, confirms a suspicion that was already there: no one out there is looking out for me.

 The Data Confirms What We Already Feel

The numbers bear this out. In a 2024 Pew survey, only 22 percent of Americans said they trust the federal government to do what is right most of the time. The Edelman Trust Barometer shows the United States at a trust index score of 43, ranking 24th globally. Gallup’s longitudinal tracking finds most major American institutions at or near all-time lows in public confidence.

But look at where trust persists. Eva Chiang, writing in The Catalyst for the George W. Bush Institute, highlights a pattern that should stop us in our tracks: people still trust their employers (77 percent), their co-workers, and their neighbors—the people they actually see and interact with. Drawing on social network theory, Chiang observes that trust tracks closely with proximity. We trust those inside our social network far more than those outside it. This is not groundbreaking as a theoretical insight, but it is devastating as a diagnosis: if our social networks have shrunk to almost nothing, then the circle of trust has shrunk with them.

Chiang found that the pandemic, for all its devastation, actually illustrated the point in reverse. When she spent more time outdoors in her own neighborhood, she met neighbors she had never spoken to. Over weeks and months, those strangers became friends—and eventually the people she turned to with her biggest life decisions. Her CEO’s weekly check-in emails and Zoom drop-ins during those chaotic early months deepened her trust in her organization. The lesson was not about institutional strategy. It was about showing up.

The First Step: Love Your Neighbor

There is an ethic older than any institution, any policy framework, any trust barometer that speaks directly to this crisis. It is the command—found across religious and moral traditions—to love your neighbor as yourself. This is not a sentimental suggestion. It is a practical one. Loving your neighbor means knowing your neighbor. It means learning their name, understanding their struggles, showing up when they need help, and accepting help when you need it. It means choosing the inefficiency of real relationship over the convenience of isolation. It means, in the most literal sense, rebuilding community one conversation, one meal, one act of ordinary generosity at a time.

No institution can do this for us. No government program can legislate it. No nonprofit can scale it from a national headquarters. This is work that happens at the most local level imaginable: our streets, our apartment buildings, our blocks. And yet it is the precondition for everything else. Until people experience trust in the small, personal, face-to-face encounters of daily life, they will have no reason to extend that trust outward to the institutions that claim to serve them.

Denia Garcia, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs, saw this truth confirmed during years of ethnographic fieldwork on participatory budgeting in Chicago’s Rogers Park neighborhood. Standing outside a train station, she asked residents if they wanted to help decide how to spend a million dollars in public funds. The skepticism was fierce. One man walked away saying, in Spanish, “Why vote if you are not going to do it?” A Black woman told her, “It’s not going to be for this part of the neighborhood.” These were not uninformed people. They were people who had no reason—no lived, relational, neighborly reason—to believe that anyone with power cared about them.

And yet, when residents were given genuine decision-making authority over real resources—not a suggestion box but actual power—something shifted. They chose practical, community-serving projects: repaved streets, murals, new playgrounds. The process was imperfect, but it worked because it began with a posture of trust toward the people, not a demand for trust from them. Participatory budgeting succeeded where top-down programs failed because it embodied, in civic form, the ethic of loving your neighbor: seeing people as capable, worthy of trust, and deserving of a voice.

What Legacy Institutions Can Learn

If the root of institutional distrust is the collapse of community and human connection, then the response cannot be more press releases, more white papers, or louder self-advocacy. Legacy institutions—government agencies, national nonprofits, large media organizations, major philanthropies, academic institutions—need to understand that their problem is not a communications failure. It is a relational failure. And the repair will not come from the top down or outside in.

Research from the Boston Consulting Group, though focused on corporations, reinforces this with hard data. In a study of 177 of the world’s largest publicly traded companies, BCG found that nearly 30 percent experienced a major trust crisis over a three-year period—and 80 percent of those crises were self-inflicted. Only 24 percent of companies that suffered a breach managed to recover, and those that did recovered not through apology campaigns or crisis communications but through demonstrated competence—by visibly delivering on their core promises. Translated out of the corporate context, the lesson is plain: trust is rebuilt not by what you say but by what you do, and what people can see you doing in their own lives.

The path forward runs through smaller, more local, more relational organizations—grassroots groups, neighborhood associations, community health workers, local faith communities, parent-led school organizations, small businesses—that already have what national institutions have lost: proximity. These organizations are embedded in the daily lives of the people they serve. Their leaders coach Little League, attend the same church, and shop at the same grocery store. They are already inside the circle of trust. What they often lack is not legitimacy but resources: funding, technical know-how, data, and connections to larger systems. This is exactly where legacy institutions can add value—not by trying to reclaim the spotlight, but by putting their considerable assets in the hands of organizations closest to the ground.

Stop Defending the Castle. Start Building the Village.

Here is where the argument moves from philosophy to practice. Legacy institutions spend enormous energy and resources defending their relevance—lobbying for continued funding, publishing justifications for their existence, protecting turf, guarding their historical relevance, maintaining hierarchies. This is the institutional equivalent of circling the wagons. And it is precisely the wrong posture if you want to build trust.

The resources currently devoted to institutional self-preservation need to be redirected toward a fundamentally different mission: finding community leaders, inspiring them, equipping them, and resourcing them with the perspectives, philosophies, and practical tools they need to rebuild trust in their own neighborhoods. This is not a program to be administered from headquarters. It is a posture to be adopted—one that asks, genuinely and humbly, “How can we help?” rather than declaring, “We have the answers and you need to listen.”

Identify. Every community already has its leaders—the people others turn to, the organizers who show up, the voices that carry weight on a block or in a congregation. These are not always the people with titles or credentials. They are the neighbor who organizes the cookout, the pastor who knows every family on the street, the parent who coordinates the carpool and somehow also runs the food pantry. Legacy institutions must develop the relational intelligence to find these people, and that requires being physically present in communities—not surveying them from a distance.

Inspire. Community leaders often do not see themselves as leaders. They are too busy leading to reflect on it. Legacy institutions can add value by helping these individuals see the significance of what they are already doing—connecting them with a broader vision, with the stories of others doing similar work in other places, and with the encouragement that what they are building matters far beyond their block. Inspiration is not a TED talk. It is the act of saying, “What you are doing is important, and you are not alone.”

Equip. This is where institutional knowledge becomes genuinely useful—not as a lecture from on high, but as a resource offered in service. Community leaders need practical tools: how to navigate local government, how to apply for grants, how to organize a meeting, how to read a budget, how to understand the policy landscape that shapes their neighborhood. Legacy institutions have this knowledge. The question is whether they are motivated or even know how to share it on the community’s terms, in the community’s language, and at the community’s pace—without requiring people to earn a credential or sit through a semester of coursework to access it.

Resource. Finally, community leaders need tangible support: funding, materials, connections, advocacy networks, and the institutional credibility that can open doors. This does not mean legacy institutions should become silent ATMs. It means they should invest in local leaders the way the best venture investors invest in founders—with conviction, flexibility, and a willingness to let the person closest to the work make the decisions.

 Moving Beyond the Ivy Walls and Ivory Towers

Among legacy institutions, academia is perhaps the most vulnerable to this critique—and the most capable of answering it. Universities are, by design and by tradition, set apart. They exist behind ivy walls and in ivory towers, organized around credentialing, peer review, and a hierarchy of expertise that can feel impenetrable to anyone outside it. The language of the academy—the jargon, the citations, the disciplinary silos—can function as a gate rather than a bridge. A community organizer in Milwaukee should not need a Ph.D. to access the research on what makes neighborhoods thrive. A pastor in rural Wisconsin should not need a faculty appointment to tap into what scholars know about civic engagement and social capital. A small business owner on a street corner shouldn’t have to get an MBA to learn to run a great business.

The irony is that universities produce extraordinary knowledge about exactly the problems communities face, but that knowledge too often stays locked inside the institution, published in journals that community leaders will never read, presented at conferences they will never attend, and written in a register that signals this is not for you. If academia genuinely wants to rebuild public trust, it must do more than study the problem of trust from a safe analytical distance. It must come down from the tower, leave its gates, sit at the table, and ask the hardest question any expert can ask: “What do you need from us?”

This is not an argument against expertise. Expertise is valuable. Research matters. Rigor matters. But expertise offered with humility—translated into accessible language, delivered in community spaces, shaped by the questions that local leaders are actually asking—is a fundamentally different thing than expertise broadcast from a lectern. The former builds trust. The latter, no matter how well intentioned, may increasingly erode it.

What Sharing Power Actually Looks Like

If institutions adopt this posture—identifying, inspiring, equipping, and resourcing community leaders—what does the practical shift look like?

Fund trust, not just programs. When a institutions funds a local grassroots group, it should resist the urge to micromanage. Prescriptive grant requirements and burdensome reporting structures signal exactly the kind of institutional distrust that the funding is supposed to remedy. Flexible funding that lets local leaders respond to their own communities’ needs sends a different message: we trust you.

Share data and expertise without strings. Legacy institutions sit on enormous stores of research, data, and institutional memory. Most of it never reaches the people who could use it most. Making that knowledge freely and accessibly available—not behind paywalls, not in academic jargon, not contingent on formal partnerships—is one of the simplest and most powerful things a large institution can do.

Invest in local information ecosystems. Chiang highlights that people who are well-informed—drawing on multiple sources and following current events—have significantly higher trust scores, regardless of income. Strong local journalism, positive social media, community newsletters, and neighborhood information networks are infrastructure for trust. Legacy institutions should invest in these ecosystems rather than competing with them.

Prove competence through local results. BCG’s research shows that trust recovery depends on visible demonstrations of competence more than any other factor. For public institutions, the measure of success is not what you publish from headquarters but what changes on the ground. Did the school improve? Did the water get cleaner? Did the neighborhood become safer? If the answer is yes, and a local organization led the effort with resources you provided, trust grows in two directions—toward the local group that delivered, and quietly, toward the larger institution that made it possible.

Show up, then step back. The most meaningful thing a large institution can do in a community is arrive with resources, listen to what is needed, deliver what is asked for, and then get out of the way. The credit belongs to the community.

Ancient Wisdom for Modern Times

The ethic invoked throughout this essay is not a modern invention. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a foundational commandment in both the Jewish and Christian bibles, originating in Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Situated within a series of laws aimed at fostering holiness in community life, the verse emphasizes that love is not merely an emotion but an action — defined by the refusal to seek vengeance, the refusal to bear grudges, and the commitment to treat others with the same care and concern one has for oneself. The phrase “as yourself” establishes not a feeling but a standard of conduct: consider your neighbor’s needs and interests as you would your own. Jesus identified it as a moral foundation on which the rest of the law depends, declaring that all the Law and the Prophets hang on two commands: loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37–40). It is, in other words, the oldest and most universal argument for exactly what needs to happen: that the rebuilding of trust, community, and civic life begins not with institutions or policies but with the daily, practical, sometimes inconvenient decision to love the person next to you.

Trust Is Rebuilt at the Speed of Relationships

We will not solve the crisis of institutional trust with institutional tools. We will not restore faith in government through better government messaging. We will not convince a skeptical public to believe in systems they experience as distant, unresponsive, and indifferent to their lives.

What we can do is much simpler and much harder. We can love our neighbors. We can learn their names. We can sit on the porch instead of scrolling on the couch. We can show up at the school board meeting, the block party, the community garden. We can choose the friction of real human relationship over the frictionless comfort of isolation.

And legacy institutions, if they are wise, will follow. Not with megaphones. Not with campaigns. Not with defensive explanations of their own relevance. But with open hands—redirecting their resources away from self-preservation and toward the community leaders who are already doing the work of rebuilding trust one relationship at a time. Identifying them. Inspiring them. Equipping them. Resourcing them. And then stepping back, with the humility to let the trust that grows belong to the community that built it.

Garcia’s residents in Rogers Park participated when they were trusted with power. Chiang’s neighbors became confidants when they simply kept showing up. The Surgeon General is right that we face an epidemic of disconnection. The United Kingdom was right to treat loneliness as a matter of national policy. Senator Murphy is right that isolation is fracturing our politics. But epidemics can be reversed. The cure for this one is not a policy. It is a practice—the oldest one there is: love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else follows from there.

References

Aguiar, M., Schilke, O., Dubner, R., Barros, A., & Kiderman, J. (2024, November 21). “From crisis to comeback: The long road to rebuilding corporate trust.” Boston Consulting Group.https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/rebuilding-corporate-trust

Chiang, E. (2022). “Distrust in our institutions is real, but we can rebuild trust.” The Catalyst, (22). George W. Bush Presidential Center. https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/restoring-trust-in-institutions/chiang-distrust-in-our-institutions

Cramer, K. J. (2016). The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker.University of Chicago Press.

Davies, M. (2023, May 4). “Five years on from the first Minister for Loneliness.” Re-engage.https://www.reengage.org.uk/news/five-years-on-from-the-first-minister-for-loneliness/

Edelman. (2022). 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer. Daniel J. Edelman Holdings. https://www.edelman.com/trust/2022-trust-barometer

Gallup. (2023). Confidence in institutions. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

Garcia, D. (2024, October 15). “How do we rebuild trust? One simple answer is to ask people what they think.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / La Follette School of Public Affairs. University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://lafollette.wisc.edu/news/how-do-we-rebuild-trust

Office of the Surgeon General. (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/connection/index.html

New Revised Standard Version Bible Updated Edition. The Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. 2021.

Pew Research Center. (2024, April). Public trust in government: 1958–2024.https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/22/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Zak, P. J. (2017). “The neuroscience of trust.” Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 84–90.