Rethinking Resilience: Unpacking its Impact on Systemic & Structural Issues

By Dr Muna Abdi

"Resilience," defined as "the dynamic process that leads to positive adaptations within the context of significant adversity," has permeated research and practice across disciplines. This concept often emphasizes the benefits of positive emotions, successful traits, and coping mechanisms in navigating life's challenges.

However, it's crucial to recognize how resilience is not just an individual endeavor, but also deeply interconnected with systemic and structural issues. Recent discussions around resilience in the UK government's National Resilience Strategy and the context of the COVID-19 pandemic underscore this connection.

Racially minoritized communities, have been disproportionately affected by various challenges, prompting the establishment of resilience recovery groups. But here's the catch: when we examine how resilience is applied in these contexts, it reveals biases and pathologizing tendencies.

Current definitions of resilience, particularly those shaped by White middle-class perspectives, must be redefined and reconceptualized. The link between resilience and neoliberal individualism is problematic, as it often disregards systemic power imbalances and inequalities.

While some critique resilience as an individualistic and potentially disempowering concept, anti-racist scholars and activists highlight its role in minimizing the impact of systemic white supremacy. This perspective explores how individuals, families, and communities deploy resources to counteract racism's effects.

Moreover, it's crucial to note that resilience research largely operates within a Eurocentric framework and lacks engagement with social and economic policies that both shape and are shaped by resilience. To redefine resilience effectively, we need to address these systemic issues and engage anti-racist perspectives.

So how can we work to redefine resilience?...

The Power of 'Difference' in Resilience:

'Difference' is not a threat; it is an asset. Embracing diverse perspectives and experiences is crucial when redefining resilience. Individuals from various backgrounds employ unique strategies to navigate adversity. When we recognize and appreciate these differences, we acknowledge that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to resilience. Instead of pathologizing responses that deviate from the norm, we should celebrate the ingenuity that arises from the varied experiences of racially marginalized communities.

Historically, resilience research has often failed to consider the unique strengths and coping mechanisms that different cultures and communities bring to the table. By acknowledging and valuing these diverse approaches to resilience, we can move towards a more inclusive and equitable understanding of how individuals and communities respond to adversity.

Resilience and 'Threat': Exploring Misconceptions:

One pervasive misconception that we need to address is the conflation of resilience with 'threat.' In many cases, the responses of individuals facing adversity, particularly within racially marginalized communities, are inaccurately perceived as threats. This misconception has deep-rooted implications, as it perpetuates stereotypes and biases, ultimately leading to a stigmatization of those who are struggling to overcome systemic challenges.

Racially marginalized individuals are often subjected to intense scrutiny, especially when they react assertively to adversity. Their responses are unfairly labeled as disruptive or confrontational, further marginalizing them and invalidating the very real challenges they face. It is crucial to recognize that resilience should never be mistaken for a 'threat.' Instead, it should be seen as a legitimate response to systemic injustices.

Unpacking the Complexities of Resilience:

The concept of resilience is far from one-dimensional. To redefine resilience effectively, we must delve into its complexities. 'Absence,' 'difference,' and 'threat' all play unique roles in how we perceive and apply resilience.

'Absence' points to the critical issue of voices and perspectives that are omitted from the resilience narrative. When certain communities and their experiences are excluded from the discourse, our understanding of resilience becomes incomplete and biased. This exclusion is particularly common when discussing the resilience of racially marginalized communities.

It is essential to recognize that resilience research has predominantly operated within a Eurocentric framework, overlooking the invaluable contributions of various cultural and ethnic groups. To redefine resilience, we must challenge this absence and ensure that all voices are heard and valued.

Amplifying Voices and Redefining Resilience:

To genuinely redefine resilience and move beyond one-size-fits-all definitions, we must amplify the voices that are often marginalized. Celebrating diversity and challenging prevailing misconceptions are key steps in this journey.

Redefining resilience requires an inclusive and equitable approach that acknowledges the power of diverse perspectives in shaping our understanding of how individuals and communities respond to adversity. It is time to move beyond the individualization of systemic and structural issues and to confront the biases and pathologizing tendencies that have crept into the resilience discourse.

In conclusion, redefining resilience is not just an intellectual exercise; it is a call to action for social justice and equity. By recognizing and valuing the power of 'difference,' challenging misconceptions about resilience as a 'threat,' unpacking the complexities involved, and amplifying marginalized voices, we can pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of resilience that addresses systemic and structural issues affecting racially marginalized communities.