A Preface for "Resilience:Interdisciplinary Perspectives in Science ...

©2010 Editor and Author/sThe word “identity” in the definitionabove is important. It implies that thesystem can have the same identitywhile undergoing changes, but only upto a point. If change exceeds somecritical amount then the system is nolonger able to self-organise in the samekind of way, and it changes to someother way of functioning, with adifferent structure and differentregulating feedbacks – and it developsa different identity (Cumming et al2005).It was this word „identity‟ thattriggered the initial interaction betweenme and Astier Almedom (the initiatorof this Journal). She, too, had focussedon identity as the defining feature thatcaptured critical change in thepsychosocial transition people make inthe aftermath of disasters (Almedom,2004; Almedom and Tumwine 2008).Resilience of individuals, families,communities and institutions isdetermined by their capacity tomaintain their identity whileundergoing transformations (adaptingto adversity) through persistence withroutine functions and rituals whichmake them who they are as people,communities, cultures, nations and/orinstitutions. Human agency anddeliberate action to maintain one‟sintegrity is where we differ in thinkingabout identity. An ecosystem‟s identityis described by the functions andcontrols that distinguish it, whilehuman identity is imbued with agency,customs, rituals, and deliberate action.Ecosystems and people are selforganising,complex adaptive systemswith non-linear dynamics. They canexist in multiple (alternate) stabilitydomains, or „regimes‟, and the shiftfrom one to another is triggered whenthey cross some critical threshold. Anda crucial point is that the positions ofsuch thresholds are not fixed. What wedo to ecosystems, and the kinds ofnatural and social environments thatpeople live in, influence how muchthey can change before they reach athreshold, which is a measure of theirresilience.If there is no possibility of „regimeshifts‟ (cf Scheffer and Carpenter2003), no possibility of „tipping points‟in human behaviour, or thresholdeffects in ecosystems, then there is nofundamental problem in resourcemanagement or in human welfarebecause the system is always smoothlyreversible. It is globally stable andrecovery is always possible withoutmajor interventions. In non-linearsystems, however, the likelihood ofalternate system regimes is high and ashift (intended or unintended) from oneto the other can be irreversible, or veryhard to reverse. Resiliencemanagement therefore places anemphasis on identifying alternateregimes and what determines thethresholds between them.I conclude with a few observations,emerging from comparative analysesof resilience in various regions of theworld (see, for example, Walker et al2006), on actions that can build orreduce resilience.Probing the boundaries of resilienceKeeping things constant reducesresilience. A common objective ofpolicies aimed at optimizing someparticular product or outcome is toidentify an „optimal‟ state of thesystem, and then to somehow try andkeep it in that particular state. In fact,keeping a system in one particular stateleads to self-organized changes thatmake the system less and less resilient.As an example, preventing fire in aforest in an attempt to keep it in itsResilience: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Science and Humanitarianism, Volume 1, March 2010ii