What Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses

Abstract

International audienceA fashionable concept, resilience is now a must in both academic research and management. However, its polysemy nourishes many debates on its uses, heuristics and operational relevance. The purpose of this article is not to bring these debates to a close. Starting from a cross-disciplinary state of the art, we point out the incompatibilities between certain meanings and uses of the term. These inconsistencies raise theoretical issues, leading some researchers to reject the term for that matter, especially those outside the cindynics field. The analysis of the concept also brings out some methodological pitfalls. These are evident when attempting to translate theory into operational terms. Resilience is indeed seen as a promising response to recurrent difficulties in risk management. Nevertheless, it solves them only partially and produces new ones. Lastly, its implementation involves ethical and political risks. The injunction to resilience that seems to prevail internationally is in fact implying a number of moral and ideological assumptions which are not always clearly stated and remain serious issues

Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey

“…Not all potential users of the term are happy with this situation, and some feel that adoption of the term, or perhaps the concept, has done more harm than good. Thus, Comfort et al (2001), Park (2011 and Reghezza-Zitt et al (2012) are all suspicious that resilience is being used as little more than a fashionable buzz-word.…”

Coping with adaptation in the Paris metropolis. Technics and politics of the uncertainty society

“…Elle est explicitement présentée comme une réponse au problème de la gestion de l'incertitude inhérente aux questions de développement durable et de changement climatique (Berkes, 2007). Elle est souvent décrite comme le « revers positif » de la vulnérabilité (Reghezza et Rufat, 2015), comme si le développement de l'une assurait mécaniquement la réduction de l'autre. Dans ce contexte, le couple ajustement/vulnérabilité disparaît au profit de l'adaptation/ résilience.…”

“…C'est l'un des huit objectifs de la stratégie territoriale élaborée par la DRIEE dans le cadre de l'application de la 35 Il y a deux façons d'éclairer cet apparent paradoxe : l'une, plus politique, en montrant que les gouvernements et les organisations internationales sont pris dans les contradictions néolibérales et cherchent à se décharger de leurs responsabilités sur les victimes car elles n'ont plus les moyens de leurs politiques (Reghezza et al, 2012 ;Chandler, 2014) ; l'autre, plus académique, en montrant que cette apparente fuite en avant découle de l'écran de fumée du « naturel » de l'adaptation et de la résilience qui contribue à une lecture rebiologisante des questions sociales, les deux notions constituant un « grand bond en arrière » par rapport au travail de dénaturalisation et de politisation des catastrophes qu'avaient permis l'ajustement et la vulnérabilité (Reghezza et Rufat, 2015).…”

Conceptual Delimitations Between Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity to Extreme Events and Global Change

“…Despite the recent attempts to develop a resilience paradigm and the impressive growth in the number of publications in the field, it should be noted that there is no consensus on the definition and adequacy of the resilience concept in the study of natural hazards and disaster reduction, as some of the skeptics pointed out (Reghezza-Zitt et al, 2012). A consensus on the definitions of resilience might not be possible, and MacAskill and Guthrie (2014) underline that it is even necessary to accept the idea of having several valid interpretations of the concept, which could facilitate transdisciplinary understanding of resilience in risk management.…”