Open AccessWhat Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses
Author(s) -
Magali ReghezzaZitt,
Samuel Rufat,
Géraldine DjamentTran,
Antoine Blanc,
Serge Lhomme
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
cybergeo
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.16
H-Index - 16
ISSN - 1278-3366
DOI - 10.4000/cybergeo.25554
Subject(s) - resilience (materials science) , heuristics , ideology , relevance (law) , field (mathematics) , premise , term (time) , epistemology , polysemy , politics , sociology , discipline , engineering ethics , risk analysis (engineering) , management science , political science , positive economics , computer science , business , law , social science , economics , engineering , philosophy , mathematics , physics , thermodynamics , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , pure mathematics , operating system
International audienceA fashionable concept, resilience is now a must in both academic research and management. However, its polysemy nourishes many debates on its uses, heuristics and operational relevance. The purpose of this article is not to bring these debates to a close. Starting from a cross-disciplinary state of the art, we point out the incompatibilities between certain meanings and uses of the term. These inconsistencies raise theoretical issues, leading some researchers to reject the term for that matter, especially those outside the cindynics field. The analysis of the concept also brings out some methodological pitfalls. These are evident when attempting to translate theory into operational terms. Resilience is indeed seen as a promising response to recurrent difficulties in risk management. Nevertheless, it solves them only partially and produces new ones. Lastly, its implementation involves ethical and political risks. The injunction to resilience that seems to prevail internationally is in fact implying a number of moral and ideological assumptions which are not always clearly stated and remain serious issues