"Resilience is a dirty word. It is an overused, poorly understood utterance which appears to consist of a blasphemous, hollow cacophony of yoga, coffee vouchers and mindfulness training. Yet it has crept into all aspects of society, from everyday communications, through [rhetoric in our classrooms, self-help books,] academic literature, all the way up to governmental priorities. Despite such ubiquity, it seems to have slowly aggravated the very fragilities it aims to strengthen, evoking eye-rolling, toe-curling, blood-boiling reactions to its use." (Tan, 2022)
I dislike the word "resilience".
The term has become a buzzword in recent years, especially in the context of personal growth and development. From motivational speakers to self-help books, we are constantly bombarded with messages that tell us to "be more resilient" in the face of adversity. While there is no doubt that 'bouncebackability' is a valuable trait, the way it is often used can be harmful and dismissive of real issues that people face.
In this blog, I argue that we need to stop asking people to be resilient and instead focus on creating a society that is more supportive, empathetic and demonstrates compassion.
What is resilience?
Resilience has been misinterpreted. Although the Latin term "resilire" means the ability of a material to "bounce back", applying this definition to an individual is oversimplistic, and relying on a single intervention as a cure-all. The term is often described as a positive trait, one that can help us overcome challenges and achieve our goals. There is no doubt that "resilience" is an important quality to have, but the way it is often framed and overused can be problematic.
The term "plastic words" was coined by German linguist, Uwe Poerksen. "Resilience" is one such word that lacks meaning due to its pervasive use. Plastic words are crafted to have broad appeal and are found everywhere, from scientific discourse to casual conversation. Despite their apparent familiarity, the actual meaning of plastic words remains unclear upon closer inspection. In his book, Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modern Language, Poerksen describes these words as a "daily prison of perception" that infiltrates various aspects of reality, reshaping them to fit their own image.
Let's have a deeper look at the problem throwing around the term "resilience".
The problem with the resilience narrative
The problem with the resilience narrative is that it places all the responsibility for overcoming adversity on the individual. It suggests that if someone is struggling, it is because they are not resilient enough, that they are not trying hard enough, or that they are simply not strong enough. What about the underlying or contributing factors that have caused the stress, strife, discrimination or other challenge? The significant onus on the individual can be incredibly damaging, especially for people who are dealing with real issues such as mental illness, poverty, or discrimination.
Once the research of developmental psychologists, striving to grasp how young people triumphed over adversity, the word "resilience" has seeped into the nook and cranny of our conversations in challenging times. It's the shiny glimmer, the uplifting remnant that remains after disaster and trauma. The notion that adversity and trauma can strengthen character is highly objectionable as it implies that certain communities require hardships to toughen up, while others are privileged enough to avoid them altogether. The prevalent narratives of resilience often highlight stories of endurance in the midst of adversity, suggesting that anyone can overcome the cycle of disadvantage.
When we ask people to be more resilient, are we essentially telling them to "just deal with it" or "get over it"? This is not only dismissive of people's experiences, but it also ignores the fact that many of the challenges people face are systemic in nature. For example, someone who is living in poverty cannot simply "be more resilient" to overcome their situation. They need systemic change, such as better access to education and healthcare, affordable housing, and a living wage. This can also be applied to resilience in learning. When a young person faces poor academic or pastoral outcomes, what weight of responsibility should be placed on the individual versus the contributing factors of the 'system'? As parents, teachers and professionals, what are we doing to support the cracks in the foundations that are contributing to poor outcomes? I do not seek to remove all responsibility and accountability from the individual, but we do need to look beyond the sticking plaster of "be resilient" or "building resilience".
The ability of people, particularly children and adolescents, to cope and overcome adversity alone is limited. We all need support from others, whether it is from friends, family, teachers or other professionals. Asking people to be more resilient, a.k.a "get over it", can discourage them from seeking help, as it may invalidate their experiences, making them feel ashamed or embarrassed that they are struggling.
I agree, building up "bouncebackability" is important, but overcoming adversity requires support, self-compassion, and the empathy and understanding of others.
Creating a more supportive society
The resilience business relies on an approach to change that focuses on the individual, rather than addressing the underlying structures and systems that cause challenge. If schools and other services had the necessary resources, children would not have to overcome the difficulties in their environments.
Instead of asking people to be more resilient, we need to focus on creating a more supportive, empathetic and compassionate society. This means acknowledging that many of the challenges people face are systemic in nature and that they require systemic solutions. While this may be perceived as a naive standpoint, surely this must be a goal we should be striving for? Until we can achieve long-term societal change, what do we do in the meantime? When approached by someone having challenges, of whatever kind, the last go-to option should be to tell them to "be resilient" or to develop resilience. Practicing the flows of compassion towards others, and yourself, is an important aspect of coping with adversity. Undoubtedly, there will always be adversity to overcome in life, but resilience shouldn't be the first go-to coping strategy.
Resilience crosses the ideological divide: it serves progressive ideas of success “against the odds” as well as more conservative notions of individual grit and “pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.” We're implored to possess resilience, to summon our inner grit and confront whatever life throws our way. If we develop this capability to cope with hardships, "ta-da!", we'll bounce back with even greater strength. Arguing against resilience appears almost foolish - what's the alternative? Remaining stuck in a rut? No... but surely there's a better way?
Wrapping up
I dislike the word "resilience". The plastic word that pervades our lives, supports an industry, and aims to provide a silver lining to the cloud of adversity is certainly more damaging than one intends it to be. When thinking about the using the term, asking yourself the following questions may be helpful:
What is the purpose of asking someone to be resilient?
Does the person know how to be resilient?
Does saying to someone, "be resilient" actually invalidate their experiences, cause shame or embarrassment, and deter them from seeking support in the future?
Would showing empathy, compassion and understanding to any underlying issues be more helpful and appropriate?
Can the person facing challenges be provided support for any underlying issues that may be present in their life?
Being resilient is thought to be a positive. But is it? Expecting someone to be resilient, in the face of adversity or challenge, is actually a big ask. If resilience was easy, would we ever need support from family, friends, teachers and professionals?
When working with a young person, a colleague, or speaking with a family member, let's avoid the invalidating sticking plaster of "resilience" that may provide temporary comfort. In time, future challenges will cause wounds that need more than a temporary dressing: the support, validation and compassion of an understanding confidant, mentor or role model. More generally, we need to look at wider systemic issues that are typically masked by requests to "build resilience" and endure hardships, often not of our own making.
Reference:
Tan M. Z. Y. (2022). Resilience is a dirty word: misunderstood, and how we can truly build it. Critical care, 26(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04040-x
コメント