Why romanticising resilience in war is harmful

Why do we so often hear the word 'resilient' used to describe people affected by war?

Resilience is a key response to political violence and repression, both during and after such events. Yet our understanding is limited, often focusing only on individual suffering in contexts of peace. Resilience, however, is part of our individual, collective and societal responses,  helping people find strength in face of adversity. With our research, we aim to shift the discussion, showing how resilience manifests in the context of political violence and repression. By recognising resilience, we also recognise the agency and strength of survivors - they are not passive victims whose futures need to be decided for them.

What does it mean to romanticise resilience, and why is that so harmful for the people living through conflict and trauma?

While we want to recognise responses of resilience , how we do this is important, as it can risk romanticising resilience. First, by focusing on resilience alone, we risk minimising, ignoring or even justifying suffering. Political violence and repression have devastating effects on societies and across generations. No level of personal or collective growth can make violence and harm acceptable or justifiable. Second, focusing only on resilience  places responsibility on those experiencing political violence and repression. It implies that they need to “do their part” to survive. Instead, responsibility should lie with perpetrators, the international community and nations rebuilding in the aftermath. Resilience should not be a substitute for justice, nor for  inequalities or taking action to stop human rights violations. Third, we often find it easier to hear and talk about resilience rather than suffering, which can send the message to survivors that the only acceptable response is resilience. This is reinforced by societal norms, commemoration events, the way history is written.

What have you learned from working with people who’ve lived through war, repression or human rights abuses?

My work, but also many examples in our edited book, recognise that resilience can take many forms. In face of extreme violence, it may mean simply surviving with dignity. Open resistance might not be possible in contexts of prolonged and extreme suffering, especially because perpetrators manipulate social bonds and connections as a  form of punishment. In these situations, responsibility lies with all of us to do our part. Equally, we recognise that other forms of resilience can be more open and essential for social change. It is through these expressions that we do show that we do not accept political violence and repression, whether it affects us directly or impacts other parts of the world. Resilience can therefore be crucial for survival but also for driving change.

How do communities support each other through trauma, and why is that so important?

In our research we have recognised the power of communities in facing extreme suffering and rebuilding life in the aftermath. This power is expressed through shared meaning (understanding what has happened and why), practical support , such as providing food and shelter and emotional support, such as maintaining hope about the future. Communities also offer coping strategies and a sense of purpose to maintain dignity and endurance. This support can present itself in the form of social support for survival, or collective action for societal change, both during and after violence, such as  coming together to seek justice, rebuild nations and prevent future conflict. Because our communities are so important to us, they can also be purposefully used by perpetrators to violate social norms and inflict further harm. Our research documents how communities are used to create and maintain control, highlighting the importance of recognising both.

What’s a better way for us – as individuals, governments or the media – to talk about resilience and recovery?

We need to recognise that the terms we use carry political, social, economic and historical power. It can shift attention away from the need to intervene, deliver justice and support survivors, thereby romanticising it. Our language and its purpose should be guided by those directly affected by political violence and repression and should aim to meet holistic needs that bring about sustainable change, addressing past, present and future inequalities.