In my clinical practice, I’ve often encountered a confusing moment: I spend months exploring a theme with a client, only for them to return and present the same idea as a brand new discovery they found on Instagram/tik-toc or through ChatGPT. It is an embarrassing, even slightly irritating experience for the therapist. However, in the context of Mentalization-Based Therapy (MBT) and Epistemic Trust, I believe this "Stolen Insight" is actually a profound bid for agency.

This paper explores the "In-law Paradox" of therapy : the vulnerability of moving into the "home" of a stranger and being expected to disclose deep grief in a one-sided relationship. To escape this forced intimacy, clients may outsource trust to a digital Third. While AI offers immediate linguistic labels, it lacks the human marking and affective resonance required to bridge the gap between a client’s knowing and their feeling, often resulting in a hollow "synthetic mentalization" where the words that sound right but feels hollow.

I propose "Narrative Hospitality" is the necessary analogue antidote. By being a "sucker for a story" and sitting in the fragmented "mess" with humor and curiosity, the therapist provides a container an algorithm cannot replicate. When we have the humility to survive the "theft" of our expertise, we facilitate a transition from protective mistrust to a robust Epistemic Self-Trust.

Rationale: This topic was chosen because it highlights the dynamics of rupture and repair as the central mechanism for building trust in the clinical setting. I argue that the "stolen insight" is a contemporary form of rupture a breakdown in epistemic trust where the client seeks safety in a digital third. By exploring the therapist’s humility in navigating these moments, the paper demonstrates how acknowledging clinical "failure" can repair the alliance and foster the individual agency necessary for community participation.

Trust in healthcare is usually discussed either as interpersonal trust in clinicians or as institutional trust in services and systems. Classic syntheses define trust as the acceptance of vulnerability under uncertainty, shaped by perceived competence, benevolence, and integrity, and distinguish trust from mere confidence or reliance. Sociological work has long warned that organisational change, managerialism, and complex access pathways can erode trust by thinning relationships and increasing opacity. In parallel, continuity-of-care research—especially in primary care—consistently associates relational continuity (the ability to see the same clinician over time) with higher trust and improved communication.

This conceptual paper advances a focused claim: continuity is not simply a patient preference; it is a psychosocial infrastructure that enables trust to accumulate and, crucially, to be repaired after inevitable ruptures. A four-level map clarifies how structural discontinuity reverberates across domains: (1) interpersonal trust (clinician–patient), (2) organisational trust (patient–local clinic), (3) systemic trust (patient–health system/government), and (4) intrapsychic self-trust (trust in memory, judgement, and bodily perception). Serial handovers, rotating staff, and fragmented accountability generate repeated “trust restarts,” shifting trust away from experiential, voluntary forms toward trust-by-default” arrangements where compliance substitutes for relationship.

A psychosocial mechanism is proposed that links continuity to containment and repair: continuity functions as a clinical frame—a reliable holding environment—supporting disclosure, toleration of uncertainty, and facilitating rupture/repair work. The conclusion offers continuity-oriented interventions at micro (handover and repair practices), meso (named clinician or micro-team models), and macro (policy incentives/metrics) levels, positioning continuity as essential trust-building work inside contemporary healthcare.
In line with the conference theme “Trust, Mistrust and Community,” the paper treats continuity as a condition for trust, examining how structural discontinuity pushes patient-clinican relationships toward distrust or compliance, and how upvalueing of continuity could facilitate repair in everyday care.

Trust is one of the central aspects of psychiatric care. Being the trust bestowed upon the patients by the nurses or the other way around. It is one of the factors that can transform the outcome of a hospitalization. However, we argue that in a structure that is based on an asymetry of power, trust is also determined by institutional conditions.

Drawing on a psychodynamic and institutional perspective inspired by Guattari, Deleuze, and Tosquelles, we approach psychiatric institutions as places where trust is intimately linked to the circulation of desire — understood not as individual motivation, but as a flux of collective and institutional forces that navigates through a web of representations. From this standpoint, the capacity to trust is bound up with the possibility of assuming responsibility in situations that cannot be fully mastered or protocolized, in accordance with one’s own desire.

We argue that many contemporary configurations of care, organized around logics of performance, standardization, education and control, function as social defenses against uncertainty and create a climate of mistrust. While intended to make care safer, they may paradoxically undermine trust by neutralizing desire, marginalizing practitioners and patients’ own theories of care, resulting in forms of epistemic injustice. In that kind of situation, mistrust may become either defensive compliance or corrosive.

By contrast, we explore how alternative institutional arrangements can support trust by sustaining autonomy, circulation of desire, spaces of collective organization, conflict, and not-knowing. From this point of view, institutional responsibility does not lie in the illusion of mastery and safety, but in holding the conditions under which vulnerability can be shared and trust continuously re-worked, desire can be taken responsibility of. A psychosocial reading of desire thus offers a critical lens for understanding contemporary crises of trust in psychiatric care in France and beyond.

This paper interrogates the nature, value and practice of trust within youth and community work, arguing that trust - despite its conceptual slipperiness and potential dangers - is foundational to the relational ethos of the field. Drawing on philosophical, sociological and practice-based literature, the chapter critiques common assumptions about trust, distinguishing it from adjacent concepts such as reliance, obedience, or faith. It contends that authentic trust necessarily entails mutual vulnerability and the possibility of betrayal, and that the erosion of such vulnerability through professional distancing, rigid safeguarding systems and managerialist cultures threatens the distinctiveness of youth work relationships. Through an examination of five key dimensions of trust - its nature, trustworthiness, rationality, value and cultivation - the paper argues that trust is neither fully rational nor fully volitional; it is shaped by emotions, socio-political conditions and relational dynamics. Trust cannot simply be demanded by practitioners but must be negotiated, earned and reciprocated. The chapter concludes that youth and community workers must reclaim trust as a core pedagogical value, embracing their own uncertainties and vulnerabilities in ethically grounded ways. In doing so, they create conditions for mutual recognition, autonomy, learning and transformative encounters, particularly for young people who may never previously have been trusted. The paper ultimately positions trust as a fragile but essential practice of freedom that both enables and is enabled by genuinely dialogical relationships.