Resilience

Very accessible, and that is the problem. Without specifics, it flatters the speaker while placing all burden on those affected. 'Bouncing back' dismisses transformation; 'resile' reveals the potential for transformation but conceals the value of persistence and stability. The continuum - persistence, resistance, transformation - is a more honest framing. Research shows resilience is relational: not a quality individuals carry but a capacity produced by context, relationships, and organisational culture. Worth pressing: resilience of what, for whom, and determined by whom?

Can be used to mean distributed, bottom-up capacity to absorb shocks - emphasising collective agency, systemic support, and the responsibility of power-holders to create enabling conditions. Similarly, it can be used in ways to strip power and context out of the picture entirely, placing responsibility for coping with shocks on individuals and communities who are already most affected. When governments or corporations call communities "resilient," it can function as a compliment that excuses inaction - you're strong enough to cope, so we don't need to change the system that produced the shock.

The ability to cope with and recover from shocks -- but whose responsibility?