The relationship between forced migration and urban resilience is an under‐researched topic within both the local resilience and migration discourses. While discussions tend to focus on institutional and psychological resilience, we argue that forced migration should be considered a systemic component of urban resilience and the future of cities. As resilience is currently understood in many different ways, even in contrasting ways, we contend that true resilience requires counteracting the pervasive “threat” of arrival and its criminalisation. There is a need to establish counter‐narratives that replace narratives of fear, hate, and division with narratives that uphold everyone’s human dignity. These narratives should emphasise what urban societies have in common and demonstrate how inclusion can shape urban futures. While there is no reason to romanticise the “productive moments” of disruptions induced by forced migration, these moments are crucial for learning how to navigate urban realities and futures in arrival and postmigrant societies. They are also indispensable for building societal resilience in times of crisis. Likewise, we need to be more aware of the risk of depoliticising the discourse on local resilience by viewing a “broad consensus” as a resilient solution—this tends to silence critical voices.
Haase et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: