In this assignment resilience is defined in a critical way, using the approaches of different theorists.
Folke, Carpenter, Walker, Scheffer, Chapin and Rockstőrm (2010) state that resilience is based on three socio-ecological systems (SES). Resilience is made up of “persistence, adaptability and transformability” (Folke, et.al., 2010). They are all interrelated in the attempt to achieve the ability of SES subjects to constantly adapt while remaining within critical boundaries (Folke, et.al., 2010). To add to this view, Moberg and Simonsen (2011) defines resilience as finding coping strategies for unexpected crisis and/or events. Resilience also aids in finding sustainable solutions within the threshold of existence (Moberg & Simonsen, 2011).
Cote and Nightingale (2012) on the other hand argue that conceptualising social change and analysing human environmental dynamics are not fully explored when only looking at resilience. This causes issues in attention to epistemological and normative aspects underlying resilience (Cote & Nightingale, 2012). This means that the scope of analysis should not be restricted to only resilience but inclusive of all influential aspects that may play a role in the need to develop resilience. Béné, Wood, Newsham and Davies (2013) also point out limitations to resilient thinking and argue that the building of resilience cannot be used as a substitute for the objective of poverty reduction. Even though it is an important factor in poverty reduction, resilience cannot take the place of these programs.
127 our experts are availableright now
Critically looking at all the observations and limitations highlighted by the theorists, defining the concept of resilience has to be holistic in nature. Considering all the views, the general outline of resilience is the persistence of adaption to change within a stable environment in order to facilitate transformability (Folke, et.al., 2010., Moberg & Simonsen, 2011., Cote & Nightingale, 2012., Béné, et.al., 2013). It aids in identifying sustainable strategies to better the lives of others (Moberg & Simonsen, 2011). However it cannot be used as a substitute for poverty reduction objectives (Béné, et.al., 2013) and must be inclusive of all underlying factors that contribute to its development (Cote & Nightingale, 2012).
In conclusion, resilience is the ability to adapt to change in a specific environment and contributes to transformability without substituting poverty reduction objectives while inclusive of underlying developmental factors.
Reference List
- Béné, C., Wood, R. G., Newsham, A., & Davies, M. (2012). Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes, (405), p.1–61. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2012.00405.x
- Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), p.475–489. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708
- Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society. 15(4) : 20.
- Moberg, F., & Simonsen, S. H. (2011). What is Resilience? Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre.
