By: Dr. Kumar Raka, Editor-ICN
Resilience of Japanese society is also remarkable. Indeed, as the sea reared up to ravage the country’s coast on March 11, 2011, more than 90% of the population in the affected areas had already fled to safety. The civilian training that accompanied the systems was followed by most of the affected population. Citizens were prepared and acted quickly upon receiving notice of the quake. In the aftermath, When the dead were examined many were wearing numerous layers of clothing as is recommended when heading for higher elevations. They also had their emergency packs strapped to their bodies containing food and other essentials. The remarkable calm and coordinated response efforts in the aftermath were evident how deeply the resilience is rooted in Japanese people and society. Individuals, communities and at large the whole society shown order in the face of chaos; compassion in the face of devastation; generosity in the face of loss.
Top-down & Bottom-up Approaches
Israeli society is considered quite resilient, based mostly on its experience of disruption throughout the years of conflict with its neighbors, as well as the long history of persecution of the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Several studies have confirmed this impression, including a study of the rate of Israeli societal resilience in the period of the Second Intifada. Several specific programs have been carried out in many Israeli communities since the early 1980s. They are designed to enhance the capacity of the population to stand up to terrorist attacks and to keep up, as much as possible the functional continuity of community life. Many of the programs were centered around three main themes: empowerment of local leadership; enhancement of local services to the public; and upgrading the personal life skills of elementary school students to help them function as normally as possible in a crisis. Evaluations have shown the programs to have a mostly positive outcome of the communities’ resilience and conduct in ensuing emergencies. The societal resiliency in Israeli society is an example of top-down approach. (Elran, 2013)
The bottom-up approach of resiliency is evident in Bangladesh where the government in association with the World Food Programme and also community based organisations is implementing the Enhancing Resilience (ER) programme across 43 disaster and poverty-prone sub-districts amongst communities along the southern coastal belt and north western flood plains. In 2012 the programme provided 82,000 ultra-poor women and men with employment opportunities, benefiting 410,000 household members. The local planning process involves community members in a participatory bottom-up approach that identifies community needs and solutions. Bottom-up approaches that emphasise participation by the local community, including in goal setting and the means of achieving goals, creates community ownership and commitment and adds accountability to development initiatives. (Hunger, Nutrition, Climate Justice, 2013)
Resiliency can be learnt
Resiliency is a trait that is developed no one is born resilient. Each individual can build up their resiliency in their everyday lives over time. Resiliency can be learned, acquired, and honed through conscious decisions to observe and practice. It is all about learning how to arrest the attitudes, behaviors, and responses that lead to bounce back against all odds and succeed, even when it seems like it is too far off. In December 2015 the New York Time Magazine called “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience.’ Wherein; it concluded that decades of research have revealed a lot about how it works. This research shows that resilience is, ultimately, a set of skills that can be taught.
Summary & Insights
The progressive evolution of the resilience concept also led to its incorporation into almost every academic domain. On one hand, it has become an important research theme and even a common ground for interdisciplinary collaboration. However, it has also lead to a great disparity of definitions and approaches between scientific domains. Additionally, of the more than 6000 articles published on the subject since the 80s, three-fourths of all research has been produced by five developed countries: USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and Germany (Xue, Wang, & Yang, 2018). As a result, resilience researchers have focused on outcomes that are western-based with an emphasis on individual and relational factors typical of mainstream populations, and their definitions of healthy functioning lack sensitivity to community and cultural factors that contextualize how resilience is defined by different populations and manifested in everyday life.
The contemporary trend on building resilient communities and societies by the government, international organizations and scientists creates the need to assess them in order to develop the necessary adjustments in the hope that the next traumatic event may render better outcomes for the affected population. However, most efforts of building resilient communities have been directed towards urban settings, and the main strategy aims to incorporate the best technology in infrastructure to minimize risks from threats. Accordingly, most of the assessment tools are tailored for urban settings and measure aspects inherent to the environment or institutions. Scientists are encouraging the production of a ‘universal’ tool for developing and measuring resilience. Unfortunately, none of these initiatives pursues to understand the psychological and behavioral traits and processes of communities that give rise to resilience. The evidence reveals that strong political and economic motives are the steering wheel of the investment of resources. The world might see a successful development of better infrastructure and government contingency plans, but at the cost of the individuals’ mental well-being decline. When research disregards the very ones who constitute the core of society, failure befalls sooner or later. In terms of what is happening globally to build resilience in disasters, there is an increasing recognition that most countries even lack the resources to provide the needed psychosocial services.
No two communities will ever experience a traumatic or catastrophic event in the same way because of the economic, social, cultural and psychological differences. Efforts should be focused on developing strategies tailored to the needs of each community, taking into account the community/ society specific contexts.
Culture comprises a set of values, beliefs, and everyday practices that are transmitted between individuals and reinforced through social discourse. Embedded in culture are expectations regarding appropriate ways to cope with adversity that influence environment –individual interactions (Ungar, 2013). Cultural variations tend to be most invisible when we make assumptions of homogeneity based on biased experimentation with populations that do not experience the same adversity as those upon which the theory of resilience is imposed. Very few studies exist of people with disabilities, native tribes, rural populations, nonwestern democracies, or illiterate people. Researchers seldom import the benchmarks of healthy development from those with a minority voice in the research literature even when they represent numerical majorities internationally. However, it must also be considered how much ethno-racial minorities are a part of the dominant culture in assessing the influence of cultural norms and practices.
It is interesting to examine the characteristics of communities who can be deemed as resilient. Most of them do not possess the best technology, or have very developed infrastructure, and some of them even are illiterate. They lack all the resources that developed countries are currently investing in upgrading their ‘resiliency’. None of them is conducting thorough research to understand the factors and processes that may enhance their ability to cope with adversity. Nevertheless, it is true that many of them suffer of many limitations, needs, and/or conflicts. Their quality of life is not the best in terms of material goods, public safety, or even health standards. However, they have managed to survive through hardships. Some of them–like the Sentinelese uncontacted tribes in India, – have survived after catastrophic events that devastated other communities with better infrastructure and more resources. Pondering over this reality prompts to question the relevance of current research tendencies and prospective initiatives. Could it be that the majority of resources and efforts are being allocated in the wrong place?
Resilience as a process is not the same as the suppression of symptoms associated with mental disorder that follow exposure to trauma. Mental Health professionals would experience a breakthrough in their practice if they conducted a thorough research on the mechanisms that protect against the impact of trauma showing contextual and cultural specificity. Traumatic events take place around the globe, shattering all kinds of groups and societies, rich and poor, white or black, modern or tribal, educated or illiterate. In conjunction with the increasing rate of man-made disasters, the world is demanding more effective approaches to psychological assistance. The overly greater proportion of mental health casualties over physical injuries stands in need for a greater understanding of the processes and mechanisms that enable communities to adequately cope with adversities in order to deliver higher-quality services that prevent entire societies of suffering permanent psychological consequences and turning this earth into a grimmer habitation for mankind.
