Social Resilience: Tracing Conceptual Evolutions and Theoretical Pathways
What exactly do we mean when we talk about social resilience? The term has gained traction in recent years, especially in discussions about sustainability, well being, and how communities cope with crises. Yet, definitions of social resilience vary widely, often focusing narrowly on the ability to “withstand” or “bounce back” from adversity. In his article Social Resilience: A Critical Synopsis of Definitions (Qamar, 2023), Azher Hameed Qamar takes a closer look at these definitions, comparing them side by side to uncover their common threads, limitations, and possibilities. By doing so, he highlights social resilience as more than just a capacity—it is a dynamic, multifaceted social construct shaped by relationships, cultural practices, and institutional contexts.
This post summarizes the following article:
Qamar, A. H. (2024). Social Resilience: A Critical Synopsis of Existing Definitions. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 15(1).
The concept of resilience has evolved into a multidisciplinary idea, first rooted in psychology and ecology. Early studies framed it as an individual trait or capacity to cope, recover, and adapt, but this narrow focus overlooked broader social and environmental influences. Over time, resilience came to be seen as a dynamic process shaped by person–environment interactions, rather than a static personal quality.
In psychology, resilience was initially linked to outcomes (positive development after adversity) or capacities (internal assets like self-esteem and coping skills). However, this emphasis on individual traits risks ignoring the role of institutions, social structures, and practices. The shift toward process-oriented models highlighted resilience as both innate and learned, involving personal, interpersonal, and environmental resources.
In the 1990s, resilience research expanded to include the social dimensions of vulnerability and adaptation, especially in the context of natural disasters. Adger’s influential work in the early 2000s defined social resilience as the ability of social systems to withstand external shocks, emphasizing the role of socio-political change and livelihoods. Since then, social resilience has become central to sustainability studies, migration research, and broader socio-ecological debates.
Beyond the Individual: Situating Resilience in the Social World
Since the 1960s, resilience research in the social sciences has shifted from a trait-based view to an environmental and person–environment interaction model, and more recently to a constructionist perspective. This constructionist view sees resilience as a socially and culturally embedded process, shaped by political, economic, and social contexts, and emphasizes the shift from “I” to “we.”
Research by Rutter and Garmezy expanded resilience studies beyond individual traits to include relationships, family, and socio-cultural environments. Families and extended networks, especially in collectivist societies, provide crucial psycho-social resources such as interdependence, shared labor, and support systems that strengthen resilience.
Despite its importance, social resilience remains understudied. Most definitions are disaster-focused and tied to community resilience, often using top-down approaches that overlook participant-centered, ground-up perspectives. Given its complex, dynamic, and multidimensional nature, social resilience requires qualitative, context-sensitive approaches to capture its interconnected social, political, cultural, and economic dimensions.
Theoretical Shifts and Emerging Pathways
Qamar’s analysis identifies three major theoretical movements that have shaped the development of social resilience:
From Ecology to Society – The concept’s early adaptation from ecological systems theory inspired scholars to view societies as complex, adaptive systems.
From Psychology to Sociology – The growing recognition that resilience is not only about individual coping but also about collective action and social support.
From Stability to Transformation – A more recent emphasis on resilience as a process of social change, focusing on learning, adaptation, and transformation rather than mere recovery.
These shifts highlight that social resilience is not a static quality but a dynamic process that unfolds through social relations, power structures, and historical contexts.
Re–imagining Social Resilience
Social resilience is a relatively new concept that highlights the social dimensions of resilience, particularly the interaction between people and their environments and the social behaviors that shape resilience. In the context of migration, this article critically reviews how the concept has been defined across disciplines to strengthen its theoretical framing in social science research.
A Web of Science search identified 166 articles with “social resilience” in their titles since 1994. The earliest, from biology, described resilience in ant colonies as adaptation and role reorganization. In the social sciences, however, Adger (2000, 2002) is recognized as the first to define social resilience.
Published in 1994, the oldest and perhaps the only article in which authors used the concept o social resilience as a phenomenon, was “Social resilience in individual worker ants and its role in division of labor”. — social resilience as a phenomenon that worker ants demonstrate by working in different colonies while re-adopting to new positions and learning to maintain their role for efficient division of labor — (Sendova-Franks and Franks, 1994).
Publication trends show that while only five articles appeared between 1994–2006, interest has surged in recent years, with 100 articles published between 2018–2022. Of the 166, 57 provided explicit definitions, either original or adapted, while others relied on broader psychological definitions. After removing duplicates, 16 unique definitions were analyzed through content analysis to identify key terms, verbs, and characteristics used to conceptualize social resilience.
Synthesis: Across the 16 definitions, social resilience is consistently described as the capacity of individuals, groups, or communities to absorb shocks, cope with stresses, recover, and adapt in the face of social, political, economic, or environmental change. While some authors emphasize coping and recovery, others highlight adaptation and transformation, or the role of institutions, networks, and relationships. Taken together, these perspectives show that social resilience is not static but a dynamic, multidimensional process that combines coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities to sustain well-being and strengthen communities over time.
Most definitions of social resilience use the terms capacity and ability, reflecting psychology’s early influence in framing resilience as a measurable construct. While capacity refers to potential and limits, and ability to developed skills or competence, the two are intertwined—abilities can be improved within the scope of one’s capacity. Applied to social resilience, this means resilience can be learned, developed, and strengthened through internal and external resources.
Beyond measurement, resilience also connects to agency: the capacity of actors to cope (reactive), adapt and reorganize (proactive), and transform in response to adversity. This positions social resilience not as a fixed trait but as a dynamic, process-oriented capability, shaped by social, political, economic, and cultural contexts.
Coping capacity, expressed as resistance, is the immediate, short-term response that enables individuals, groups, or communities to absorb shocks, recover, and adjust. This reactive agency lays the foundation for adaptive capacity, where learning and adjustment create stability and flexibility, and for transformative capacity, where proactive agency drives long-term change and sustainability.
Coping is closely tied to risk perception, shaped not only by individual sensitivity and vulnerability but also by broader social and environmental factors such as marginalization, access to resources, and political visibility. Together, coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities form a pathway from resistance to sustainability, reflecting human agency as a dynamic process of absorbing, learning, adjusting, and thriving.
Ultimately, social resilience is best understood as a social phenomenon, grounded in lived experiences, interactions, and practices within political, cultural, economic, and institutional contexts. It is not static but a continuous process of navigating change, constructing meaning, and sustaining well-being through adversity.
Contributions to Contemporary Debates
By synthesizing diverse theoretical strands, the article contributes to the ongoing debate on how to define and operationalize social resilience in research and practice. It calls for a more nuanced approach that integrates structure and agency, individual and collective experiences, and continuity and transformation. This conceptual clarity is essential not only for advancing academic discourse but also for informing social policies that strengthen community capacities and foster inclusive, equitable societies.