"Resilience" was a huge buzzword a
decade ago or so. I remember having been a regular reader at a blog that
obsessed about it. Eventually, I stopped reading there because there
seemed to be no insights, just chewing through the same idea over and
over again. The "resilience" apostles also saw "resilience" everywhere,
or at least being important everywhere. They had a hammer in the inventory
and nails everywhere problem.
Nothing
of what little I remember of all those "resilience" recipes looks
relevant to the current crisis. "resilience" zealots were (IIRC)
practising the subsidiarity principle: They thought that low level
common sense (re)action was the key to "resilience". The current crisis
appears to emphasise very, very different qualities*:
- having specialist expertise institutions
- paying attention to them, not to the usual universal dilettante talking heads
- not having idiots in big lever situations (this ranges from the one South Korean sect member to "let's pray" nonsense talkers to irresponsible media talking heads to heads of government)
- having emergency rules (distancing people from each other mostly) enacted
- in time
- and enforced by an effective police force
- having relevant industrial production capacities for very specific products
Very little points at neighbourhood self-organisation and self-help being a key factor. It's more like a nice-to-have feature.
Instead, resilience in this crisis seems to be about having a large-enough, sophisticated-enough economy and a both competent and decisively-acting government. It's a case study in favour of technocracy and a bit of temporary limited authoritarianism.
Thinking
about it, all "resilience" preachers whom I remember seem to have been
Americans. Maybe their "resilience" preaching was nothing but the
typical American/anglophone selective anarchism combined with a
buzzword?**
S O
P.S.: On the other hand, I gotta be honest and admit that I did
not do a full spectrum surveillance on "resilience" talk then or now. I
may have looked at a niche.
*: Closing borders only delays unless you can close for real, and very early. Iceland stood a chance to escape completely, but its government failed. Other countries merely could have bought only a week or two by strict international travel restrictions. Closing borders for travel after the virus is already in the country with many cases is quite pointless. The outlawing or flights and train travels because of the too high density of crowds makes sense, but it makes then little sense to set different rules for travellers who mean to cross a border.
**: That's merely the nice interpretation, for I know of a more ugly possible explanation for why all that talk around 2010 came to be and that one is particularly American.
honourable mention; this came to my attention after I wrote the blog post and planned it for release on 28th: https://twitter.com/AndrewCesare/status/1242174265547468803 Brazil has a problem with #3.
.
honourable mention; this came to my attention after I wrote the blog post and planned it for release on 28th: https://twitter.com/AndrewCesare/status/1242174265547468803 Brazil has a problem with #3.