The Problem With Resilience: Individualisation, Reductionism and Relationality in Health Discourses on Resilience

Narratives of resilience are proliferating in health policy and research where they are used to address problems threatening individuals and communities. Resilience approaches are often considered alternatives to other models of intervention because they signal a shift away from deficit assumptions to more empowering ways of promoting health. To date, however, there has been a lack of scrutiny of the nature, assumptions and effects of resilience discourse within the health field. This paper critically analyses the logics that underpin the use of such discourse, and the implications of their allure. Findings show that resilience discourse is largely understood and operationalised in neoliberal, individualistic and reductionist terms. Such logics create normative standards for what counts as 'proper resilience' and, by doing so, engender experiences of guilt and shame when individuals are not 'resilient enough'. Seen differently, through the logics of social relationality, for example, resilience can engender new forms of subjectivity and practice for individuals and communities as 'expert' and 'knowing'. Relational resilience is especially evident in First Nations scholarship, where it is conceptualised in terms of collective values, practices and identities rather than the attributes of individuals, offering opportunities to advance thinking about resilience and its use in health contexts.