PANEL 23 / RESILIENCE BEYOND NEOLIBERALISM? METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
CONVENOR: JAN BÍBA (Charles University).
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
The discourse of resilience has increasingly become one of the dominant concepts in social sciences and part and parcel of many policy initiatives in various areas, from defence to the environment. At the same time, however, it is a concept that has drawn sharp criticism for its alleged association with neoliberalism. While some view resilience as a “corporate-cum-academic-dream” (Neocleus, 2013) and hope it is a fleeting intellectual trend soon to disappear, others note the unusual “resilience of resilience.” (Walker and Cooper, 2011) Thus, whether we like it or not, resilience is probably here to stay.
Therefore, the papers in this panel explore the potential of resilience thinking beyond neoliberalism. They critically assess resilience as a methodological and political concept, questioning its capacity to reinforce neoliberal assumptions while examining its integration into critical and democratic theory. A central concern across all contributions is the tension between resilience as an adaptive mechanism and the need for normative critique and democratic agency, making the discussion highly relevant to our predicament.
The first paper, “Beyond Determinism: Resilience as a Methodological Challenge for Critical Theory,” examines the methodological implications of resilience for critical theory, mainly through the lens of Axel Honneth’s recognition theory. It argues that while the concept of immanent transcendence in critical theory already acknowledges the historical situatedness of knowledge, resilience thinking pushes this further by questioning the stability of normative ideals. This shift necessitates an adaptive yet critical approach that avoids deterministic progressivism and passive acceptance of systemic resilience. However, the paper also warns against the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on resilience, which may dilute critical theory’s emancipatory aspirations.
The second paper, “Democracy and Resilience: From Neoliberal Governance to Post-liberal Democracy?” extends the discussion by interrogating the relationship between resilience and democratic theory. Resilience thinking has frequently been associated with neoliberal governance, emphasising adaptability over structural transformation. However, the paper argues that resilience should not be simplistically equated with neoliberalism. Instead, it critically examines David Chandler’s concept of post-liberal democracy, which seeks to transcend traditional liberal-democratic structures by prioritising adaptability and self-organisation over representation and sovereignty. The paper contends that while Chandler’s framework moves beyond neoliberalism in certain respects, it ultimately retains its core premises by reducing democratic engagement to self-management rather than collective action. Thus, even in its critical form, resilience thinking risks constraining democratic agency by privileging adaptation over meaningful contestation and transformation.
The third paper, “The Meaning of Uncertainty in Elections in Times of Faltering Neoliberal Hegemony: A Democratic Resilience Dilemma,” explores resilience within the context of democratic elections. The paper critiques the prevailing conception of elections as mere procedural competition mechanisms, arguing that this view is deeply entrenched in neoliberal rationality. By introducing the concept of uncertainty, the author calls for a broader understanding of elections that accounts for their transformative potential rather than reducing them to instruments of systemic reproduction. This perspective aligns with the broader critique of resilience thinking’s tendency to prioritise stability over structural change.
All enquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected].
The discourse of resilience has increasingly become one of the dominant concepts in social sciences and part and parcel of many policy initiatives in various areas, from defence to the environment. At the same time, however, it is a concept that has drawn sharp criticism for its alleged association with neoliberalism. While some view resilience as a “corporate-cum-academic-dream” (Neocleus, 2013) and hope it is a fleeting intellectual trend soon to disappear, others note the unusual “resilience of resilience.” (Walker and Cooper, 2011) Thus, whether we like it or not, resilience is probably here to stay.
Therefore, the papers in this panel explore the potential of resilience thinking beyond neoliberalism. They critically assess resilience as a methodological and political concept, questioning its capacity to reinforce neoliberal assumptions while examining its integration into critical and democratic theory. A central concern across all contributions is the tension between resilience as an adaptive mechanism and the need for normative critique and democratic agency, making the discussion highly relevant to our predicament.
The first paper, “Beyond Determinism: Resilience as a Methodological Challenge for Critical Theory,” examines the methodological implications of resilience for critical theory, mainly through the lens of Axel Honneth’s recognition theory. It argues that while the concept of immanent transcendence in critical theory already acknowledges the historical situatedness of knowledge, resilience thinking pushes this further by questioning the stability of normative ideals. This shift necessitates an adaptive yet critical approach that avoids deterministic progressivism and passive acceptance of systemic resilience. However, the paper also warns against the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on resilience, which may dilute critical theory’s emancipatory aspirations.
The second paper, “Democracy and Resilience: From Neoliberal Governance to Post-liberal Democracy?” extends the discussion by interrogating the relationship between resilience and democratic theory. Resilience thinking has frequently been associated with neoliberal governance, emphasising adaptability over structural transformation. However, the paper argues that resilience should not be simplistically equated with neoliberalism. Instead, it critically examines David Chandler’s concept of post-liberal democracy, which seeks to transcend traditional liberal-democratic structures by prioritising adaptability and self-organisation over representation and sovereignty. The paper contends that while Chandler’s framework moves beyond neoliberalism in certain respects, it ultimately retains its core premises by reducing democratic engagement to self-management rather than collective action. Thus, even in its critical form, resilience thinking risks constraining democratic agency by privileging adaptation over meaningful contestation and transformation.
The third paper, “The Meaning of Uncertainty in Elections in Times of Faltering Neoliberal Hegemony: A Democratic Resilience Dilemma,” explores resilience within the context of democratic elections. The paper critiques the prevailing conception of elections as mere procedural competition mechanisms, arguing that this view is deeply entrenched in neoliberal rationality. By introducing the concept of uncertainty, the author calls for a broader understanding of elections that accounts for their transformative potential rather than reducing them to instruments of systemic reproduction. This perspective aligns with the broader critique of resilience thinking’s tendency to prioritise stability over structural change.
