Neoliberalism, normativity and agency: constructive tensions in the application of resilience

The rise of resilience in areas of scientific study and the translation of resilience concepts into public policy and decision-making are well-documented. Resilience has been called a vacuous buzzword, a powerful lens, a guide to radical change and an academic bandwagon (Parsons and Thoms, 2018). Supporters, and critics, of resilience have variously referred to it as a means to ‘inspire citizens to re-engage with the political system’ (Rogers, 2015, p. 67), a ‘tool for hegemonic neoliberal discourse’ (Cretney, 2014, p. 632) and ‘learning how to change in order not to be changed’ (Walker, 2019, p. 17). Although the notion of resilience as a unifying concept with universality and relatability across multiple disciplines is contested by scholars, resilience continues to rise in prominence. Total scientific publications on resilience increased from 250 to 6000 between 1995 and 2015 (Folke, 2016). Resilience is the foundational construct for many political commitments, public policies and programmes in natural resource management, disaster management, international development and urban/regional planning (Parsons and Thoms, 2018). Thus, understandings of the critical and constructive tensions of resilience need to continuously advance to support the ongoing application of resilience in research, decision making and public policy.