Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Resilience, the individual trait of being able to persist and cope with, often recurrent, negative experiences, has experienced an explosion in recent years as a topic of study. In this commentary, we critique this surge and problematize the co-occurring development of the "resilience as treatment" paradigm. We show that resilience is an expectation foisted primarily on historically and contemporarily oppressed and excluded populations often in response to systemic and structural forms of discrimination. We argue that this represents a fundamental mismatch of intervention and problem; offering an individual-level solution to a structural toxin. In doing so, we re-contextualize resilience as an adverse event, more analogous to scar tissue than a reliable treatment paradigm. Our essay concludes with offering alternatives to resilience that originate with the holistic trauma and liberation health frameworks. These paradigms are united in that, in contrast to resilience, they emphasize healing from structural violence, rather than adapting to it.
Suslovic et al. (Wed,) studied this question.