RC 24 Environment & Society
  • Home
  • For members
    • RC24 Newsletter
    • RC24 Journal: Environmental Sociology
    • Journals
    • Environmental sociology associations
    • Member photos and clips
    • Announcements
    • Links
  • Blog
  • Activities
  • About RC24
    • RC24 Governance >
      • RC24 Board
      • Rules
    • Fred Buttel Award
    • Membership
    • Contact

Is resilience a useful framework for environmental sociology?

10/24/2014

3 Comments

 
By Debra Davidson

Hello RC24 members and friends, and welcome to our first ever blog entry! My thoughts today began with a simple query: what is the verb associated with the concept of “resilience”? Sustainability, after all is at least as frequently discussed in relation to verbs, which imply the form of action needed to pursue or maintain a state of sustainability—i.e. to sustain, to develop sustainably. But how often do we discuss “resiling”? It turns out this is in fact a verb. To resile, according to the Oxford Dictionary, refers to “abandoning a position or course of action.” By extension, resilience refers to bouncing back, in other words abandoning a particular trajectory that presumably leads to collapse or transformation. So to achieve resilience in effect would seem to require the exact opposite type of action as does sustainability. In some ways, this little query has offered me renewed enthusiasm for continuing to play with the concept of resilience in environmental sociology. The scale of ecological crises we currently face, after all, certainly do call for abandoning our current courses of action, and indeed abandoning positions as well, of the paradigmatic sort.


Critiques of the concept of resilience abound, however, and many warrant concerted acknowledgement. I have spoken in the past of the rather simplistic notions of human agency embedded in contemporary accounts of resilience (Davidson 2010), simplifications that lead implicitly to supporting rather rationalist and functionalist assertions of the actions of both individuals and institutions. As well, it is uncomfortably lacking in any ethical sensitivity to the difference between the various types of upheavals and adjustments celebrated as ‘resilience-inducing’ among animal and plant populations (depopulation, fire, migration, etc.), and the requisite ‘adjusting’ of human communities. I am not particularly happy about the prospect of my neighbourhood undergoing a cycle of development, collapse and renewal, thank you very much.

More recently, MacKinnon and Derickson (2013) provide a compelling, and scathing, analysis of the term. Among the most notable critiques, observing that resilience is often ascribed to human settlements of various sizes, MacKinnon and Derickson (p. 261) note: “viewing cities and regions as self- organizing units is fundamentally misplaced, serving to divorce them from wider processes of capital accumulation and state regulation.” Indeed!

MacKinnon and Derickson attribute the lion’s share of their critique, however, not to the utility of the term as a conceptual framework to guide research, but rather its uptake beyond academia, where, in short, the authors catalogue the many ways in which the term has served to download responsibility for crisis response, at times onto vulnerable populations; to de-politicize processes that cause ecological and financial crises in the first place; and in general, serve the interests of neoliberalism. I definitely agree, and we in the environmental social sciences ought to critique such applications, particularly given the relative lack of critique in public discourse currently. This is certainly not the first time a concept that emerged in academia has been co-opted to serve the purposes of political actors, in many cases to validate or otherwise reinforce the pursuit of a pre-existing paradigm that serves privileged interests, in this case neo-liberalism. Ecological Modernization immediately comes to mind, and before it, Sustainable Development and Limits to Growth were both creatively employed by various privileged actors.

However, I am concerned we might be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We need to separate constructive critical evaluation of the concept of resilience as a framework guiding scholarship, and our critiques of the mean by which the concept has been taken up politically. I think tossing resilience into the dustbin of outmoded academic concepts would be premature. There are very real concerns about the scale of hazards looming on the horizon, and just how livable this planet is going to be in 2100, or even 2050. We do need to start taking the notions of ‘system’, ‘adaptation,’ and ‘transformation’ more seriously, and here resilience seems to have some tools on offer. Is resilience a useful framework? I think we cannot do justice to this question until environmental sociologists take up the concept far more enthusiastically than we have to date, and seek ways to contribute our own insights to continued, inter-disciplinary conceptual development of the framework itself. More to the point, do we even need a single, agreed-upon framework in order for environmental sociology to offer meaningful contributions to constructive social change? My answer is no, and in the end, perhaps we spend too much time seeking that perfect one-size-fits-all model, a pursuit that Kuhn pointed out long ago is not an especially fruitful use of our collective energy.

3 Comments
Dozie
10/24/2014 05:39:46 am

Interesting perspective. In my views, resilience analyzed within the context of risk management brings even more value to the table.As new risks emerge, the world would demand from sociology like never before answers to complexities that would accompany these risks. But if the concept of resilience is properly developed and well embedded in environmental discuss and management, early enough, then, sociology would have developed appropriate recipe for responding to the imminent questions of emerging risk.

Reply
Mihai
10/25/2014 05:54:05 am

Preliminarily and tentatively, I think the verb associated with the concept of “resilience” is "to experiment." The term itself may be misleading. As a research technique, experiments are seldom used in sociology due to the complexity of the social world; moreover, this is not the understanding I have in mind. The closest meaning is probably associated with applied sociology, but there are a few thresholds that need to be passed before we can start to think about solutions.

To give an example unrelated to sociology, let us consider the "Biosphere-2" experiment described by Thomas Homer-Dixon in "The Ingenuity Gap" (2000, pp. 134–136); a short summary of the experiment is that it created an artificial ecosystem that covered 1.3 hectares and included “a little rainforest, marshland, desert, ocean, and farm.” The experiment failed because the overwhelming majority of the 3,800 species of plants and animals that made "Biosphere-2" died; however, it answered the important question of whether humans are able or not to construct and manage a complex artificial ecosystem.

Back to environmental sociology, which do we think are some of our most important future challenges? (no shortage of ideas here, I’m sure). And what questions do environmental sociologists need to answer in order to improve our chances to deal with them successfully? These two questions could (begin to) guide our future experiments. They will be less dramatic than "Biosphere-2" but they should most likely include some important re-conceptualizations.

With regard to the thresholds mentioned above, they would include abandoning (partially and temporarily) some of our current social arrangements, defining what to experiment upon, garnering the needed support, and finally experimenting. Defining each stage should probably also include the expectation of (partial) failure – however, in spite of it, important lessons will be learned.

Right now, we by and large continue on the business-as-usual path which everyone loves to hate. Experimentation could help us define alternatives and develop them gradually. If (or rather when) a crisis hits, improvisation can be dangerous and costly, and the current privileged interests are likely to turn the situation to their advantage. Such scenarios are likely to reduce resilience.

Mihai.

Reply
James Robles link
10/10/2021 05:34:20 pm

Very thooughtful blog

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    voices of RC24 members

    Edited by Debra Davidson and Magnus Boström

    Send your ideas to
    debra.davidson@ualberta.ca

    Archives

    June 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    When is it not ok to talk about climate change?

    Environmental injustice in Flint

    Emotions are everywhere, except in sociology

    Environmental sociologists make important contributions outside the Ivory Tower

    The underbelly of carbon markets is candy for the environmental sociologist

    Is there a room for ethics in international climate negotiations?

    Environmental sociology and doing international research

    The complex relationship between natural resource prices and the environment

    Can We Make 2015 Year Zero?

    How to get More Sociology in the Media

    Is resilience a useful framework for environmental sociology?

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.