Daun Kauffman posted:

A singular, clear, definition for "Resilience" will be an exceedingly difficult task. 

What's wrong with the dictionary definition? I use video from the fire training we used to do with ladders. It's one flaw is that in resilience, a human can bounce forward a bit, a ladder cannot.

I think it's a bigger question of whether or not neurological resilience is what is meant, because without that, whatever else you have will be artificial. 

Daun Kauffman posted:

There are many many many risks unless the author provides their explicit, personal definition as part of their writing and research (each time), as advised by the luminaries, including Luthar and Cicchetti and Garmezy and...(many times)

Context sometimes determines that. The word is bandied in Emergency Management a lot lately, but they assume too much. It's almost like they think the whole community will come together in one happy family. That is hardly the case. People who feel threatened, or have high survival needs and think the very people trying too manage them are the issue, they will not cooperate. They will then loot, and rob, and so on. It happens at every disaster. "Resilience" then begins to lose its meaning.

Resilience needs to be granular. If you don't have it individually, you certainly won't get it collectively when the needs are the highest.

LOVE this convo.  And yes - how do we mean it and in what context, and it exists in several (at least!).  And sometimes we have to define that - granular, what a great concept!  We could probably take the best definitions found in particular categories - do you mean physically/biologically?  Emotionally?  Cognitively or neurologically?  Etc.

Indeed!  A whole other topic set underneath the 'resilience umbrella.'  And there is the question also arises - by whose goals and standards?  In my work there are client goals and desired outcomes, which are mostly what I am focused upon, but in manuals, or glossaries or textbooks and shared-knowledge seminars, we would have to define, by categories already named, what would be 'markers' for + residence, versus - resilience, yes?

Another good conversation, and it's exciting.

Okay,  "more" Jondi  --  the research says that majority culture  (privileged) definitions (and measures) of 'resilience' can be different than minority culture definitions,  in some cases polar opposites.  Similar differences around "class" too.  Yes.    Still more,  but we may have made the point clearly already...

Daun Kauffman posted:

Okay,  "more" Jondi  --  the research says that majority culture  (privileged) definitions (and measures) of 'resilience' can be different than minority culture definitions,  in same cases polar opposites.  Similar differences around "class".  Yes.    Still more,  but we may have made the point clearly already...

My trainer is real big on those differences. She lives in LA, and her experience is like another world compared to mine. Exactly, how do we measure them? I do think there could be some ways though. 

Aside from bio markers like salivary cortisol levels and so on, self-reporting could be made to be effective. I think equally what needs to be defined, is how to we help people get there. That's my vision. Systems (imo) will take care of themselves when the people running them have a flourishing neurology. Flourishing neurology will manifest in altered behavior, the ability to feel, and name emotions, and respond to them appropriately, the ability to down-regulate an activated system and the ability to re-define what threat actually means, which could allow for more cognitive ability even in the face of stressors. 

My vision would be starting with helping people develop neurological resilience, and then as those people learn (or re-learn) to engage with their community, become more active in it. That begins to change the community, and, develop community resilience. It cascades after that. The measuring aspect would be self-evident to some degree, and self-reporting to begin with, because I don't think we currently have the tools to do otherwise.

Like the language, the technology will also have to change.

The term resilience has not been universally defined in the literature and it has both physiologically and psychological definitions.  The ability to bounce back to prior level of functioning ( in terms of physical, psychological or both) versus getting through a difficult situation and having a greater sense of mental strength or "grit".  I for one do not believe that one passively sits back and decides to be resilient- it's an active, interactive process between brain-body and psyche. I agree that their are cultural differences in definitions and it's vitally important to take that into account. As well as power dynamics in terms of majority/minority status, privilege and economic/social class differences. It's complex for sure but I think that by putting together a measure that perhaps gets at multiple definitions or arenas of resilience we can get at a better overall definition that is more encompassing. In addition, adding neuro- stress-resilience measures/intervention.

 

 

In the fire service we used to test ladders every year for their resilience. It looks like the image below. The weight (a specified amount) is slowly lowered onto the ladder and then stays there for several minutes, and then it is raised up and the ladder, if it has resilience, returns to straight. Looking down the beam of one side tells you how much deflection it has, and its serviceable life.

Interestingly, I have been to seminars and workshops where this definition is routinely misconstrued as strength, or endurance.  

fire_ground_ladder_test

Attachments

Photos (1)

Add Reply

Likes (2)
Allen K. NishikawaDaun Kauffman
Post
×
×
×
×