Resilience – Normatively Conceived, Transformatively Developed

A normative consideration of resilience has been an extensive feature of contemporary crisis discourses. As part of this debate, it has become clear that a fundamental distinction has to be drawn between the capacity to resist, the adaptation dimension, and the question of transformation. This reveals two important normative stipulations: first, to pay attention to structural and societal resilience as well as individual resilience. Second, not to assume that the conditions which have to prove resilient are unchangeable and good per se, but rather also to consider in principle the question of their transformation.

To advance reflection in these two directions, the relationship with vulnerability is examined – with reference to a non-stigmatizing concept of vulnerability. This anthropological dimension of vulnerability and resilience brings the actor question clearly onto the agenda once again. Martin Schneider and Markus Vogt blazed a trail with the concept of responsive resilience, which emphasizes the active role of human beings, who must also “respond”, i.e. i.e. not only react, but really answer to others. Only with human beings can the great transformation be imagined.

Yet this article does not ignore the question of spirituality in its discussion of resilience. It considers how the two are linked and what the implications are. As an example of such an integrative understanding of resilience, the article concludes by developing ideas and suggestions around breathing new life into the spirituality of peace. The emphasis is less on rituals such as lighting candles, more on changing attitudes and behaviors. Conditions and behaviors can only really change in the model of just peace.