By Alyanna Joyce S. Abadejos | The Red Chronicles
Photo Courtesy | Aaron Favila
When Filipinos speak of resilience, it is often associated with a shared community trait that allows individuals to adapt and withstand disasters. In a country like the Philippines, prone to typhoons, volcanic eruptions, and other calamities, this “resilience” has been widely accepted as an acquired trait.
The term has been popularized enough that it has crossed over from academia to political usage. Politicians, for example, often praised the capability of citizens to bounce back from storms and floods. Just in 2024 alone, six (6) tropical typhoons affected the Philippines and consequently, the people residing within. Also included is the constant positivity that erupts among the Filipinos even in the face of various tragedies.
As such, the common trend is that resilience becomes a value that people deem to be a positive end goal. When one aims to build ways to foster community resilience, it is automatically deemed a good and positive thing.
However, over the years, such beliefs have garnered mixed reactions. Some claim that the term directs a burden on Filipino citizens when the majority of it should be shouldered by the government while others find no wrong in promoting such forms of positivity.
While both arguments have their merit, I propose a different lens to viewing resiliency. In truth, the term itself is ambiguous. Resilience connotes adaptability, a capacity to withstand. However, this begs various questions such as, “Who becomes resilient?”
Let’s say, a storm occurs in a distant province. Afterwards, the government builds a structure to prevent the rise of floods. In doing so, they cut off easy access of a tiny, marginal community from the more developed area. Clearly, it is those residing in the province who become more resilient – but at the cost of the marginal community.
Resiliency thus cannot be contrasted as merely positive or negative. While one part of the community is built to become more resilient, another part of it may be detrimentally affected. It seems then that inequality may arise as a side effect, in some cases.
But does that mean resiliency is better off confined to describing individuals, as opposed to describing mass project goals?
I think not. The ambiguity of resilience in many fields – like politics – can also be its saving grace. If people can observe resilience through the lens of politics, they can use it as an analytical framework that urges political participation from people as they ask themselves and public officials who benefits, who loses, and how to equate the losses of one side so that both sides are treated fairly.
Take, for example, “Paradise City” in São Paulo. Acknowledging the presence of inequalities, the local government negotiated with low- and high-income residents, allowing both to gain benefits. For those living in flood-prone areas, they built public housing blocks that could withstand flooding while at the same time ensured that rents were affordable. Moreover, city leaders allowed the area to have space for commerce and businesses in which the residents could work.
Think of resilience-building projects as more of a continuous process rather than an end result. So long as there are continued efforts to analyze its politics and maintain a goal of attaining equality, resilience can lead to further progress while avoiding as much as possible tradeoffs at the expense of those with less power.
Note: This article was first published in Volume XVIII, Issue I print edition of The Red Chronicles.