| |
Ethos Perspectives
Social Resilience
Introduction
Social resilience refers to the ability
and speed in which societies rebound and recover after encountering
crises. The term gained currency in the aftermath of 9/11
as governments tried to prepare their societies for terrorist
attacks that not only destroy critical infrastructure and
human lives, but also cause defragmentation in society along
ethno-religious lines. Increasingly, governments are discovering
that technical competence in emergency management, while necessary,
is insufficient in crisis recovery plans. Furthermore, the
existing social capital in any society will be a key determinant
of its rate of recovery from a crisis and its ability to prevent
further attacks.
This issue of Ethos Perspectives examines
the current thinking and research on social resilience (References
1 and 2) and highlights the efforts of the Australian, UK
and US governments in incorporating social resilience in their
policy-making (References 3, 4 and 5).
Current Thinking and Research
on Social Resilience
Reference 1: “The Limitations
of Risk Management in Dealing with Disasters and Building
Social Resilience” by Bill Durodie
In his article, Durodie highlights
that “people tend to be at their most cooperative and
focused” in times of disaster, and cites recent examples
of such positive human responses, including the Asian Tsunami
(2004) where strangers took care of displaced children; and
the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway (1995) and the Beslan
hostage crisis (2004), where private vehicles helped to ferry
victims to the hospitals when there were initially no ambulances.
In contrast, the thinking behind most emergency management
processes has been to produce technical solutions and eliminate
human uncertainty as much as possible. Unfortunately, by relegating
people to be passive agents outside the “yellow-tape
perimeter put up by the authorities”, people are prevented
from assuming responsibility for their own safety and that
of the larger community.
To strengthen social resilience, Durodie
suggests involving the community more extensively in planning
crisis management responses. While crises destroy physical
and economic capital, they also offer rare opportunities for
societies to enhance social capital when managed in the right
way.
Durodie also cautions against over-emphasising
well-intentioned messages asking people to stay alert or look
out for suspicious characters. Beyond a certain point, such
messages may erode community trust and social bonds needed
to build up resilient societies. To Durodie, “real resilience,
at a deeper social level, depends upon identifying what we
are for, not just what we are against”. In other words,
encouraging dialogue during crises (e.g. forum discussions
on food delivery services refusing to deliver food to hospitals
during SARS) and sustaining a longer-term debate about what
we want to be, will result in a more psychologically-prepared
Singapore.
Durodie, B. “The Limitations of Risk
Management in Dealing with Disasters and Building Social Resilience.”
Politik, Vol.8, No.1, March 2005, pp.14-21. http://www.durodie.net/
(accessed 8 June 2007)
I
I I
|
|
