Resilience Timeline Manuscript-Cleaned
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
In psychological resilience research, resilience refers to “the ability of most people, when exposed even to extraordinary levels of stress and trauma, to maintain normal psychological and physical functioning and avoid serious mental illness (Russo, Murroughl et al. 2012)”. Psychological resilience theory has developed in four major waves(Wright, Masten et al. 2012). These four waves demonstrate a shift in interpretation of resilience as an individual personality trait to resilience as a dynamic and systemic process that unfolds in space and time. Table 2. The evolutionary waves of psychological resilience and their key findings. Wave Focus of the illustrative wave Key message 1 Identifying individual resilience and factors Resilience does not necessarily mean that one is unaffected or that make a difference. untouched by the trauma one has endured nor does it mean that one always functions well. 2 Studying resilience as a process. Finding Resilience viewed from a complexity perspective. similar patterns between developmental and ecological systems(Masten and Obradovic Resilience is dynamic. It is possible to show resilience at one 2008). point in life and not at another, or in one domain and not in another. Human judgment plays a critical role in defining desirable or undesirable adaptation regimes or outcomes. 3 Developing intervention strategies to foster Research shows that a resilient adaptation rests on good family or resilience surrogate family relationships (i.e., early relationship with caregivers provide the foundation for developing secure attachments to others(Wright, Masten et al. 2012)). Protective factors were discovered to moderate the impact of adversity on adaptation. Examples of protective factors include the individual, social circles, mentors, the community, and the government. 4 Looking for the link between epigenetic Adaptation is inherently multilevel. processes and neurobiological factors in shaping individuals’ resilience (Russo, Adaptation involves many processes of dynamic interaction Murroughl et al. 2012). across multiple levels of function, with gene-environment interplay and co-action playing key roles(Wright, Masten et al. 2012). Masten et al. demonstrate that people can cultivate their resilience (Ann S. Masten 2009) by developing protective factors, such as having access to caring individuals (Hughes 2012). Bonnano (2008) also noticed that personality traits and individuals’ coping styles in stressful situations have significant roles in their ability to avoid post-traumatic disorders, bounce back to their normal life, and even achieve post-traumatic growth, a significant alteration of one’s philosophy of life after being exposed to a psychological seismic wave such as spousal loss, physical disabilities, and other life crises (Jirek 2011). Cyrulnik’s (2009) interpretation of psychological resilience in his study of Second World War (WWII) survivors resonates with the findings of Masten (2001) and Bonnano (2008); these authors all agree that the dynamic and complex nature of resilience depends on two pillars. The first one is the ability of individuals to regulate the impact of stressors on their inner guiding voice. The second pillar is the degree to which individuals are supported by externally resourceful and resilient people such as mentors, coaches, or teachers (Fig. 3). External Fluid State of Shocks Cause Damage and Irritation to Individuals Systems Personality Traits, History and Current Conditions of Person or Subsystem Inclusive of Risk Factors, Previous Response Disordered Life Outcomes, Thinking Style, Cultural Interpretations of Stressors, Degree, and Availability of Resources Individuals Collectively Create a Set of Constraints that Tax Person’s Question the Resourcefulness and Endanger His or Her Well-being Damage with Whys 1. Depression 2. Adaptation and evolution Maladaptation Ego Seeks to Take Control Gives Rise to Feeling of Selfhood Then, Positive Adaptations Is Enabled By Sense of Hope Calling on Gives Rise to Value Systems, Goals Developmental If Selfhood is Reshaped and Reworked Guidelines Self-Reorganization Such as Resilience happens as one of the families Empowering the ability of ego to preserve its Representation of defence mechanism that can be integrity by exploiting its protective factors controlled and can bring us happiness. including intellectual and emotional Commitment resources and enabling bouncing back and Actions knitting process. Narratives In “Man’s Search for Meaning”, Viktor Frankl narrates a true story of resilience and concludes that humans have an enormous capacity to adapt to even the most extreme conditions (Frankl 1992). He states that “the only way to bounce back from extremes is to harness the natural tendency of the mind to give meaning to the waves of shocks. It is through transcending our previous limitations, striving toward a worthwhile goal, encountering other human beings that we find meaning and fulfilment in our lives (Frankl 1992)”. This understanding sets the following foundations for his theory of Logotheraphy (i.e. therapy through meaning making)(Frankl 1992). 1) Life has meaning under all circumstances. 2) People have a will to meaning. 3) People have freedom under all circumstances to activate the will to meaning and to find meaning(Frankl 1992). Tracking the co-evolution of social-ecological resilience, psychological resilience(Wright, Masten et al. 2012), infrastructure resilience and interdependency (Rinaldi, Peerenboom et al. 2001), and resilience in the engineering domain(Bruneau, Chang et al. 2003), shows that resilience theory in infrastructure systems is still in its infancy and lags behind theories in social- ecological and psychological resilience. Social-ecological resilience was characterised as combination of latitude (i.e. the maximum amount the system can be changed before losing its ability to recover, resistance (i.e. the ease or difficulty of changing the system, precariousness (i.e. the current trajectory of the system, and how close it currently is to a limit or “threshold” which, if breached, makes recovery difficult or impossible, and panarchy (i.e. how the above three attributes are influenced by the states and dynamics of the (sub) systems at scales above and below the scale of interest)(Walker, Holling et al. 2004). In the infrastructure sector, resilience was mostly discussed in the background with a major focus on the physical resilience of assets and their services(Haimes, Matalas et al. 1998). However, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have shifted this focus by highlighting the interdependent nature of social and infrastructure systems (Rinaldi, Peerenboom et al. 2001, Little 2004). At this point, infrastructure resilience came to the forefront attention of the US Homeland Security. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, infrastructure resilience gained further prominence in 2007 when the Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research introduced the first qualitative framework for earthquake resilient systems (Bruneau, Chang et al. 2003). This framework focused on two factors in building earthquake-resilient societies. First technical, organisational, social and economic systems (TOSE) are closely interrelated. Second, resilience as a systemic property of TOSE consists of four other characteristics, namely robustness (strength, or the ability of elements, systems, and other units of analysis to withstand a given level of stress or demand without suffering degradation or loss of function), redundancy (the extent to which elements, systems, or other units of analysis exist that are substitutable, i.e. capable of satisfying functional requirements in the event of disruption, degradation, or loss of function of other elements), rapidity (the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in a timely manner in order to contain losses and avoid future disruption) and resourcefulness (the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities, and mobilize resources when conditions exist that threaten to disrupt some element, system, or other unit of analysis). (Resourcefulness can be further conceptualized as consisting of the ability to supply material - i.e., monetary, physical, technological, and human resources to meet established priorities and achieve goals). This systemic view on the resilience of TOSE played a significant role in shaping the direction of resilience research in the engineering community, with the majority of publications in the engineering and disaster management domain collectively realising that resilience is a systemic property, which is more than just robustness of physical assets (Liao 2012, Tierney 2014). The MCEER 4-R framework also moved the framing of resilience in the engineering community closer to the latest updates of resilience in the social-ecological community. This includes both specified resilience (i.e. the resilience of a particular aspect of a social-ecological system to a particular kind of disturbance) (Carpenter, Arrow et al. 2012), and general resilience (i.e. the capacity of social-ecological systems to adapt or transform in response to unfamiliar, unexpected, and extreme shocks). Conditions that enable general resilience include diversity, modularity, openness, reserves, feedbacks, nested-ness, monitoring, leadership, and trust. This resulted in defining resilience as a combination of three major capacities: (1) absorptive capacity (i.e. the ability of a system to absorb system perturbations), (2) adaptive capacity (i.e. the ability