What Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses
Magali Reghezza-Zitt
(1)
,
Samuel Rufat
(2)
,
Géraldine Djament-Tran
(3)
,
Antoine Le Blanc
(4)
,
Serge Lhomme
(5)
Samuel Rufat
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 737164
- IdHAL : samuel-rufat
- ORCID : 0000-0001-6356-1233
- IdRef : 131403672
Antoine Le Blanc
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 18400
- IdHAL : antoine-le-blanc
- ORCID : 0000-0002-2381-1987
- IdRef : 112271294
Résumé
A 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.
Domaines
GéographieFormat du dépôt | Notice |
---|---|
Type de dépôt | Article dans une revue |
Titre |
en
What Resilience Is Not: Uses and Abuses
|
Résumé |
en
A 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.
|
Auteur(s) |
Magali Reghezza-Zitt
1
, Samuel Rufat
2
, Géraldine Djament-Tran
3
, Antoine Le Blanc
4
, Serge Lhomme
5
1
Géographie et Territoires -
Département de géographie - ENS Paris
( 80352 )
- 48 boulevard Jourdan
75014 Paris
- France
2
MRTE -
Laboratoire Mobilités, Réseaux, Territoires, Environnements
( 229966 )
- Université de Cergy-Pontoise U.F.R. Lettres et Sciences humaines 33 boulevard du Port 95011 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex
- France
3
LIVE -
Laboratoire Image, Ville, Environnement
( 441830 )
- 3 Rue de l'Argonne, 67000 STRASBOURG
- France
4
TVES -
Territoires, Villes, Environnement & Société - ULR 4477
( 55414 )
- - Bat. Géographie & Aménagement
- 54 avenue Paul Langevin
- 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq
- France
5
LAB'URBA -
LAB'URBA
( 104173 )
- Cité Descartes - Bâtiment Bienvenue - Plot A
14-20, bld Newton Champs-sur-Marne - 77454 Marne La Vallée Cedex 2
- France
|
Vulgarisation |
Non
|
Comité de lecture |
Oui
|
Audience |
Internationale
|
Date de publication |
2012-10-18
|
Langue du document |
Anglais
|
Nom de la revue |
|
Domaine(s) |
|
Mots-clés |
en
vulnerability, resilience, hazards, ideological assumptions, methodological pitfalls
|
DOI | 10.4000/cybergeo.25554 |
Loading...