A read the “Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems” and although the concept integrates the economic, social, cultural, political, institutional and economic aspects of the sustainability and make a parallel between the creative destruction of Schumpeter and the environmental innovation I think that this topic, resilience versus economic model, needs to be further explored and this question is not clear in the resilience concept because denotes an ideological feature that don’t combines with a neutral science if this is an objective of the resilience approach, but, despite this, resilience allows structural ruptures when compared with the concept of eco-efficiency that also permeates issues related to well-being and socio environmental innovation, but don1t include poverty, livelyhoods,path dependecy, threshold and regime shifts.

I’d appreciate to receive your considerations about it.

1) Resilience theory and Capitalism. The idea of resilience is deeply based on what Holling and others call adaptive cycles. In his article ‘Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems´ (Ecosystems 2001) Holling identifies one phase of the adaptive cycle with Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction. (This idea is also contained in for example Garry´s article named in this blog). In Schumpeter’s work creative destruction is indissoluble associated with capitalism. However, capitalism is not a problem in Holling’s article. It is quite strange that though Holling bases one key-aspect of “adaptive cycles” on an implicit awareness of capitalism, any concern about capitalism as such simply disappears from the text. Besides, the question of capitalism either have not place in almost all the resilience-related literature or it is a taken for granted “condition” (For capitalism as taken for granted condition see: Gunderson et al. 2002:320 ´surprises and sustainability: cycles of renewal in the everglades´, In Panarchy). (Comments on other articles that with a basis on resilience thinking deal with capitalism are not made here because shortage of space). In Holling’s article we read: “The phase from Ω to α is a period of rapid reorganization during which novel recombinations can unexpectedly seed experiments that lead to innovations in the next cycle. The economist J. A. Schumpeter (1950) appropriately called this phase “creative destruction” ( p.395). Hollings goes on and affirms: “As potential increases, slow changes gradually expose an increasing vulnerability (decreased resilience) to such threats as fire, insect outbreak, competitors, or opposition groups. The system becomes an accident waiting to happen. A break can trigger the release of accumulated potential in what the economist Schumpeter called “creative destruction” (1950). The trajectory then moves abruptly into a back loop from K to Ω”. Is it necessary to remember again that what Schumpeter is talking about is capitalism’s creative destruction?. We have here the ideological origins of this basic assumption and taken for granted idea within a large number of resilience literature on adaptive capacity and adaptive cycles. Now we are getting into the important issue here: From Holling standpoint the idea of the adaptive cycle is clearly a way of legitimizing capitalism in its relation to inevitable “adaptive cycles”. Therefore I argue that resilience theory is bounded to a normative idea of capitalism and within this theory it is impossible to go beyond the limits of capitalism. In fact, following Holling’s idea of creative destruction (capitalist destruction) and resilience, adaptation takes place along with capitalism as an essential part of the adaptive cycle (see for example Walker&Salt 2006: 73-95). As resilience is conceived as a property of social-ecological systems that could be managed, the message of resilience theory vis-à-vis the capitalist system is that we should manage capitalism’s resilience. (for resilience as a property see: ´Panarchy: Discontinuities Reveal Similarities in the Dynamic System Structure of Ecological and Social Systems´, Garmestani et al.,2009 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art15/). But being resilience theory an incoherent combination of concepts, we are also told about transformability. Yet, in this case the problem of transforming capitalism is absent as well and policy approaches based on resilience thinking should fit with the taken for granted foundational concepts and logics of the capitalist system. One of such logics is rooted is the use of money and within this context it is not surprising to hear that the idea of criticizing the role of money in regard to environmental crises sounds as something out of the agenda for resilience people. Right, Victor? Moreover, the door resilience research has opened to business resilience is just what business leaders want to hear from the academy: that they are parts of normative and ideological adaptive cycles and so they are legitimate actors in the efforts to get any kind of sustainability. Should I remember here that the book “Resilience Thinking” by Walker & Salt starts by saying that “resilience thinking should appeal to anyone interested in dealing with risk in a complex world. This includes business leaders, policy makers…” and others. Interesting piece for anyone concerned with discourse analysis. “Business leaders”, right, are the first ones in this order. It is not surprise then the fact that a branch of resilience thinking makes a lot of sense to companies and firms. See for example: http://www.businessresilience.co.uk/resilience2008/website.asp?page=Home
In relation to this point, I think that the key issue here has to do with the fact that capitalism is a system that a big part of resilience research simply tries to avoid as such. And this has a direct consequence on their notions of social power. If I am wrong on this point about capitalism and resilience, I ask resilience people to say something about the place that capitalism have in their thoughts then. I argue that through ideologically avoiding the critique of capitalism as a system, even the idea of ecosystem resilience is lost in its utility for transforming the world and creating sustainable relations with ecosystems.

2) Which is the concept of resilience we are talking about? One of the things that most surprise me is that for defending resilience theory some argue that they do not recognize Alf’s critique in the work they are doing and Garry offers a “description” of what is understood as resilience. This is not only a very weird argument but also it seems to hide the very strong, normative and very well-defined meaning of resilience in resilience theory. I recognize there are some small differences between those definitions but they aim at the same goal: to manage resilience as a property of so called social-ecological systems. Such standard and normative aspects of resilience thinking to manage social-ecological systems are the ones proposed by the resilience alliance, elaborated as a research and policy strategy in the resilience center and ultra repeated in a large number of articles published in Ecology and Society (of course there are exceptions and critical voices can be found). As we have to remember, the resilience alliance defines resilience as follows: “Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (http://www.resalliance.org/608.php). Another definition is: “Resilience – the ability of a system to absorb shocks, to avoid crossing a threshold into an alternate and possibly irreversible new state, and to regenerate after disturbance” (Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioners workbook Version 1.0 June 2007, Resilience Alliance). Nonetheless the standard definitions I have referred to above, it has been argued that there are many ways of understanding resilience. Well, that statement results at least paradoxical since in other places resilience is just a formula and a standard normative concept to be applied. And this is not just a matter of academic interests since it is aimed at reaching from practitioner to policy makers (see the workbook previously quoted) towards the goal of “managing resilience”. Interestingly, such workbook “…is structured to help guide a process of inquiry and action for those who are interested in applying the concept of resilience to complex resource problems within a region”.

Finally I have two questions. It would be quite interesting to know what Victor, as one social scientist working with resilience theory, could say abut this post by Mike Jones: “Resilience theory per se provides value neutral models that improve understanding of complex issues but in its application, resilience will inevitably become loaded with the values of those who apply it”. Do you people really think that Resilience theory per se provides value neutral models? .Just curiosity. And Garry: what would be your critique to Nadasdy´s paper? Again, just curiosity.
Some comments on the articles offered in defense of resilience theory are coming soon.

I don’t understand what you object to about me attributing the phrase “gospel of resilience” to you. In your paper in the concluding sentence of your discussion you write:

“In fact, [culture] is finally also responsible for our modern fascination with ‘traditional ecological knowledge’, which paradoxically has become so central to the ‘gospel of resilience’.”

It seems pretty clear to me that you are repeating Nasaday’s phrase as your own.

I’ve read Nasaday’s book chapter, and attended the workshops in which the chapter was presented and discussed, but I am far less impressed with his analysis than you are.

I don’t see any problem with applying social ecological resilience concepts to Peru – however like any other theoretical framework how useful they would be depends on what questions you are trying to answer.

I don’t understand why you appear to think that research approaches that incorporate power are inevitably in conflict with a resilience approaches. As pointed out by Victor and in this thread, a number of papers mentioned earlier in this thread that address simultaneously power and resilience various ways.

In my initial response to your criticism I pointed out that most of your critical comments had little to do with resilience research. It appears that you concede this point as you have not responded or addressed any of these points.

Above, I wrote how I thought your characterization of what resilience thinking was trying to do was incorrect, maybe you could respond to that comment, and either clarify your statement or explain why I am wrong.

I, and I doubt my colleagues, claim that resilience theory is useful to explain the entire world. It isn’t so useful for predicting what the outcome of elections, how much sea level rise there will be in fifty years, or what the consequences of biodiversity loss on ecosystem services will be.

If you are actually interested in the issue of how resilience thinking deals with conflicts, some of the papers mentioned above apply resilience concepts to environmental conflicts, and most of the work in adaptive management involves conflicts between stakeholders.

While, as far as I know, no resilience researchers are working in that area of the Amazon, a number of resilience researchers, including one of my PhD students, are working with First Nations to improve their land rights and environmental management opportunities using adaptive management and related concepts.

Frankly, I find many of your criticisms strange, in that they are not address what I feel I or my colleagues do (but of course we are not a monolithic group of researchers and I cannot speak for them). But it seems that you have quite a different idea of what we are trying to do, than I do. It would be much easier to respond to some specific criticisms about some specific publications, for example some from the list of a number of papers that attempt to explore various issues of power from a resilience perspective.

But some quick responses to your comments:

I (and I think most resilience researchers) don’t think ecosystems or society is a super-organism – and therefore the medicine or health are poor metaphors for managing, manipulating, or understanding ecosystems.

Many times we have written about how systems of people and nature are different from social systems or ecosystems alone!

I do think more data will help us understand things – if you see no role for measurement and experimentation i don’t think we have much to discuss.

I like to think I’m not too naive. And I’m sure that my goal is not as you write “to develop a conspicuously and naively non-political cybernetic etiology of socio-ecological degradation – based on the assumption that such processes, irrespective of capitalist extractivism, are universally patterned, predictable, and potentially manageable.”

I’m interesting in helping people make better decisions under conditions of uncertainty. I want to understand the dynamics of human dominated ecosystems – or social-ecological systems – not “subsuming social systems within the vocabulary of natural science” as you claim. I aim to understand all social processes – but I am very interested in how people interact with ecosystems.

Furthermore, as far as I know, the various social scientists – political scientists, anthropologists, geographers and economists – who have worked on resilience issues want to subsume the social sciences within the natural sciences.

Rather we share a belief think understanding how social-ecological systems cope with and reorganize is a fruitful and important area of research.

Fabricius, C., C. Folke, G. Cundill, and L. Schultz. 2007. Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive
co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society 12(1):
29.

van der Brugge, R., and R. van Raak. 2007. Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from
transition management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 33.

Cash, D. W., W. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale
and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2): 8.

Garnett, S. T., J. Sayer, and J. Du Toit. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance
conservation and development: a conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 12(1): 2.

Galaz, V.
2005
Social-ecological Resilience and Social Conflict: Institutions and Strategic Adaptation in Swedish Water Management
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
Volume 34, Issue 7. pp. 567–572