Resilience is often praised for being an admirable quality that individuals can develop to overcome challenges and hardships in their personal life.
It seems to be disproportionately attributed to members of marginalized groups who must fight against systemic oppression and discrimination. In this essay, I will explore how resilience among the LGBTQ+ community could be interpreted as a symptom of structural injustice within their lives rather than an ethical achievement.
The term "resilience" refers to one's ability to bounce back from adversity and adapt to difficult situations. It has become increasingly popular in psychology research in recent years, especially regarding mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. The concept implies that people have control over their emotions and reactions to negative circumstances, which can lead to positive outcomes. This interpretation suggests that they can alter their mindset or attitude towards stressful events and find meaning in them instead of letting them consume them. Resilience has been considered a desirable characteristic, especially for minority communities struggling with prejudice and discrimination.
There are several reasons why this narrative may reinforce existing power structures rather than challenge them. One reason is that it places the burden of responsibility on individuals to change themselves rather than addressing systemic barriers preventing equality and justice. By emphasizing individual agency, it ignores the role of social conditions shaping identity formation and opportunities available to some but not others. Another issue is that resilience often means suppressing one's vulnerability or pain to conform to dominant norms; hence, it becomes a mask rather than a tool for empowerment.
Focusing solely on personal growth through hardships can obscure broader political issues related to marginalized identities.
To illustrate my argument, I will use examples from LGBTQ+ experiences.
Members of this community may experience heightened levels of discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, class, or intersectional factors. They face increased risks of violence, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, and other forms of oppression due to institutionalized heteronormativity. Yet, when they show resilience by overcoming these obstacles, society tends to praise their strength rather than question why such barriers exist. This perpetuates the idea that being gay, transgender, bisexual, or queer is something that needs to be overcome instead of accepted as part of human diversity. It also suggests that those who fail to succeed lack character or have no right to complain about injustice. In contrast, the resilient narrative downplays structural inequality that affects everyone else but does not require them to display strength or perseverance.
Resilience should not be seen as an achievement but a necessity imposed upon minority groups to survive hostile environments. Instead of celebrating individual success stories, we must work towards dismantling oppressive structures that create suffering and inequalities. We need to recognize that true progress involves collective action towards social justice and equality for all people regardless of their identities or backgrounds. By acknowledging systemic challenges facing our communities, we can support one another's growth and build more inclusive societies where everyone has equal access to opportunities and resources.
Is resilience an ethical achievement or a symptom of structural injustice within LGBTQ+ lives?
Resilience is not simply an individual achievement but can also be understood as a structural consequence of social injustice experienced by members of the LGBTQ+ community. While resilience can be viewed as an empowering quality that allows individuals to overcome obstacles and challenges, it can also reflect systemic oppression and lack of support for LGBTQ+ people.