Coercion reduces rather than builds mutual trust among unwilling subjects.

Evidence

Coercion, or at least its credible threat, has been and still is widely practised as a means to ensure cooperation; in its extreme form, to ensure submission and compliance. But it falls short of being an adequate alternative to trust; it limits the extent to which we worry about, but does not increase trust. On the contrary: coercion exercised over unwilling subjects — who have not pre-committed themselves to being prevented from taking certain courses of action or who do not accept the legitimacy of the enforcement of a particular set of rights — while demanding less of our trust in others, may simultaneously reduce the trust that others have in us. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2734

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The two-way erosion of trust under coercion — demanding less from others while cutting the trust they place in us — is a genuinely dense insight with wide application, including to Saramago’s quarantine regime.
• XREF: Directly relevant to why the doctor’s wife’s coercive leadership earns fear but also breeds the factional treachery that eventually destroys the group.