Resilience in the face of double bind society

In response to the current situation of polycrisis and multiple threats to democracy, the concept of resilience has become highly relevant. It is studied in many fields of scientific research (neuropsychology, socio-ecology, systems theory, political theory, disaster studies), but also in strategies and documents defining public policies. The original motives of resilience studies were to undermine the patologization of individuals who have experienced atrocities, the emphasis on their powerlessness and lack of trustworthiness. However, the resilience discourse can also be used to legitimize two psycho-political attractors: one based on the commodification of happiness and sovereignty, and the other based on irreducible traumatization. Using the vocabulary of emancipation and respect, the attractors lead to further subjugation, dispossession, and exhaustion of the individual. The result is what I call a double-bind social situation that is not conducive to democratic dynamics. In my talk, I will present what resilience means in the face of this democratic double-bind. I will analyze the myths of resilience and the resulting degradation of subjectivity. Drawing on the work of Boris Cyrulnik, David Chandler, Julian Reid, Frédéric Worms, and Michael Ungar, I will argue for a theory of resilience that offers a paradigm shift to escape the vicious circle of democratic erosion.