Theorizing resilience: critiquing and unbounding a marginalizing concept

This paper provides an account of prevailing conceptualizations of resilience (namely, social–psychological/ecological definitions of resilience) and critiques them using a disability studies approach. We argue that, to date, the concept of resilience is overly prescriptive and constrained by hegemony, positivism, and ability-centrism. When unbounded, resilience may more robustly reflect the complexities of relationships and life processes of those deemed ‘impaired’, and may allow scholars to further interrogate related concepts of ‘risk’, ‘vulnerability’, and ‘disability’. We conclude that individuals deemed ‘impaired’ are marginalized by current definitions of resilience. We point to the value of conceptualizations that incorporate a constructionist orientation and a critical account of risk and vulnerability, and which avoid competency-centrism or ability-centrism.