Geography, ontological politics and the resilient future

Abstract

Applications of 'resilience' have stretched it to the point of breaking, yet it still maintains a remarkable capacity to organize relations in diverse fields of geographical concern such as ecological management, development, security, psychology and urban preparedness. Critical takes on resilience have emphasized its neo-liberal roots and utility. Whilst we do not disagree with this stance, our critical intervention argues that there are multiple resiliences invoking differing spatialities, temporalities and political implications and that this multiplicity is an important part of the work that resilience can do. We explore diverse mobilizations of resilience thinking across a wide array of empirical domains drawing out the differing ontological bases of resiliences and the interventions meant to promote them, particularly given the tension between a desire for open, non-linearity on the one hand and a mission to control and manage on the other. Rather than take resilience to be a determinedly new shift in policymaking, we explore how the post-political qualities of 'resilience multiple' can enable changes in behaviours and practices that slide between conflicting and contestable visions of the good life and desirable futures. We argue that the only way to critically interrogate resilience is to force the question of particulars in its diverse articulations, and, thus, geographers should engage in debating the ontological politics of resilience multiple.

Imagining socioecological transformation: An analysis of the Welsh Government’s policy innovations and orientations to the future

“…This ambiguity is often key to the term's apparent success; it can be passively received as a broadly helpful concept "upon which a host of strategies may converge to help society and cities better prepare for a range of risks" (O'Hare and White, 2013 p. 275). Resilience names a seemingly positive future (after all it seems counter-intuitive to argue that we should not become more resilient to potential shocks or stresses) and yet it makes no promises (Simon and Randalls, 2016).…”

“…Nonetheless, Simon and Randalls (2016) maintain that there is, at least, one theme of commonality across the diverse ways in which resilience is engaged with, and that is a certain notion of flexibility. In one sense this feels appropriate: the postmodern era has been characterised by conditions of uncertainty, accelerating change and complex, perpetually-in-flux global circumstances (e.g.…”

Introduction to the Handbook on Regional Economic Resilience

“…Based on the work to date, researchers are also beginning to raise valuable questions as to the ontologies that underpin our assumptions and our thinking. By highlighting the multiple resiliences that can co-exist or be produced (Simon and Randalls, 2016) scholars not only help to critically appraise the nature of policy approaches adopted but also contribute to wider conceptual and theoretical developments. In doing so, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that one of the most pressing challenges is to ensure that we are able to operationalise the concept of local and economic resilience so that it has an applied value as well as strong theoretical foundations.…”

A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics

“…There has been a corresponding growth of literature aimed at addressing these politics. This includes calls for: critical analyses of adaptation discourse and practice (de Wit, ; O'Brien, Eriksen, Nygaard, & Schjolden, ; Ribot, ; Webber, ; Weisser, Bollig, Doevenspeck, & Müller‐Mahn, ); context‐specific and theoretically rich studies of resilience (Cote & Nightingale, ; Shah, Angeles, & Harris, ); a more thorough integration of “indigenous” knowledge with climate science through co‐production processes (Brugnach, Craps, & Dewulf, ; Naess, ; Schuttenberg & Guth, 2015); and a recognition of ontological as well as epistemological differences in understanding the effects of, and reactions to, climate change (Armitage, Berkes, Dale, Kocho‐Schellenberg, & Patton, ; Blok, ; Daly, ; Goldman, Daly, & Lovell, ; Hegger, Van Zeijl‐Rozema, & Dieperink, ; Homsy & Warner, ; Lövbrand, ; Nightingale, ; Ogden et al, ; Shaffer, ; Simon & Randalls, ; Yeh, ). In other words, the politics of climate change knowledge are not only about knowledge making per se but are also associated with world‐making practices.…”