Resilience is often seen as an important trait that individuals can cultivate to cope with difficult circumstances.
There are critics who argue that resilience is actually a form of complicity with oppressive structures, rather than a reclamation of agency. This view suggests that when people adapt to difficult situations without challenging them, they may be complicit in perpetuating the systems that created those difficulties in the first place. In this context, it becomes problematic for marginalized groups who have been historically disadvantaged by discrimination to adopt a resilient mindset, since it means accepting their subjugation without seeking change.
Supporters of resilience see it as a way for individuals to reclaim agency and empower themselves. They believe that by developing coping strategies and finding ways to thrive despite adversity, people can take back control of their lives and create positive outcomes from negative experiences. By recognizing their own strength and resilience, individuals can build confidence and self-esteem, which can lead to greater autonomy and choice in how they navigate the world.
The reality is likely more nuanced, as both perspectives offer valuable insights into the relationship between resilience and social justice. Resilience can certainly play a role in enabling individuals to survive in hostile environments, but it should not be viewed as an end goal or justification for continuing harmful practices. Instead, resilience should be used as a tool to create meaningful change within communities and institutions, challenging oppressive structures while also protecting vulnerable members.
The debate around whether resilience is a form of complicity or a reclamation of agency highlights the complexities of navigating difficult situations in a socially just manner. While there are risks associated with either approach, acknowledging both perspectives can help us better understand the benefits and limitations of resilience as a strategy for overcoming oppression.
Is resilience a form of complicity with oppressive structures, or a reclamation of agency?
Resilience can be seen as both a form of complicity with oppressive structures and as a reclamation of agency depending on the context and individual's perspective. Compliance may involve accepting and adapting to oppressive systems and perpetuating them by not challenging their underlying power dynamics. In contrast, resilience may also be understood as an act of resistance where individuals assert their independence and creativity despite adverse conditions.