Citizen trust and distrust perceptions have become an increasingly controversial problem in recent election turmoil regarding changes in governance. Key to this trust and distrust problem is that the physical perception process in the human brain is still not well understood. The ongoing trust and distrust debate in organizational literature was researched seeking a resolution. The framework of this debate argues whether trust and distrust are separate dimensions or merely opposite ends of a single continuum. Because the human perception neural binding process is so little understood, the debate has remained in the argument stage of how trust and distrust should be defined. This led the research exploration to examine the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community’s development of computers that mimic cognitive functions of humans. AI includes a multi-sensory data gathering and binding architecture that mimics the human neural multi-sensory data gathering and binding neural signals for people to perceive a conscious awareness of the world around them. This sensory fusion architecture was used in the exploration research to create a map to match the human neural multi-sensory binding phases. The AI computer developers used fMRI research to test the credibility of their system with human participants. They identified that trust and distrust each activate separate correlative sections of the brain. This paper proceeds to examines how the perceptions of trust and distrust are used by people to develop their organization of self-governance of their social behavior, as individuals, as social groups, and as citizens’ especially the self-governance of their political governments. However, when both trust and distrust perceptions are at extreme force, they can become fused into one. The results come often at the expense of most of the people involved, as described in the Polybius’ Cycle Governments.
The analysis of force-fields for managing social change developed by Kurt Lewin, Eric Trist, Fred Emery, and other pioneers in Action Research is used as a guide to explore the role of energy’s force-fields in bring about emergent change regarding people, social groups, and ecology. Action Research uses force-fields as dynamic placeholders to follow the forces influencing people’s interactions develop into emerging organization complexities of social change. The paper charts a course of exploration that follows energy’s force-fields. The exploratory view is through the lens of energy and proceeds along three interlinked paths: 1) Energy: force-fields interacting for change, 2) Complexity: cooperative self-reorganization for change, and 3) Process: Energy’s Work Domains for enacting change. By focusing strictly on energy’s force-fields in action we can see better how change emerges from the processes of energy’s force-fields’ interactions. We can see anew our options for managing social change and develop better ways for us to enact them.