THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
2.4 RESILIENCE THEORY
45
strengths make them resilient in periods of adversity. According to Guo and Tsui (2010), the new attitude represented by strengths-based practice was welcomed by powerless people in disadvantaged situations such as new immigrants, low income groups and patients with chronic illnesses. The strengths-based model does not label service users as dysfunctional, defective or ill. Programmes that enhance resilience are applied to strengthen strengths-based practice.
However, it is important to note that scholars do not agree with what constitutes a strength. Certain scholars such as Goodluck (2002) mention that the strengths perspective is not yet a theory in social sciences though others such Waller (2001) recognise it as a theory.
46
resilience as a successful adaptation to life task in the face of social disadvantage or highly adverse conditions. Resilience is a two-dimensional process concerning the exposure to adversity and the positive adjustment outcomes of that adversity. This implies that there should be an impact of a risk factor and the ability of an individual to adapt.
According to Daniel (2011) resilience theory was coined by Holling in 1973 where he denoted that it determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variable, driving variables and parameters and still persist. Resilience theory as purported by Gunderson, Holling, Pritchard and Peterson (2002) has its foundation in systems thinking, including complex systems theory, and is essentially about understanding the characteristics of change and the interactions between human and natural systems.
Gunderson et al (2002) further asserts that, resilience theory aims to understand three fundamental themes. The first considers the characteristics of stability, resilience, and change from one state to another in systems with multiple stable states. The second is cross-scale interactions and the third is one of adaptive change and learning using the heuristic model or metaphor of the adaptive cycle.
Resilience is contextual in many ways as well and must be understood as multi- dimensional and varies across time and circumstances. There are three factors which affect resilience: factors internal to an individual, environmental factors, and a product of the interaction between the person and the environment (Tousignant & Sioui, 2009).
Factors internal to the person include internal locus of control, perseverance, emotion
47
management, optimism, sense of humour, self-efficacy and the ability to solve problems. According to Tousignant and Sioui (2009), individual factors that affect resilience include genes, personality traits and intelligence.
Environmental factors such as the family, peers, religion, the community and social support heavily influence a person‘s resilience. Resilience is a long process of interaction between a person and his environment, to face adversity and lead to emergence of moral strengths and a sense of optimism (Tousignant & Sioui, 2009).
Pienaar (2012) argues that resilience can be seen as having four main determinants:
external realities that function as stressors and challenges and which initiate risk and resilience process, external supports that promote resilience, inner strengths that develop over time, interpersonal problem solving skills.
Critical in the study of resilience is the concept of community resilience. The term is used interchangeably with the term cultural resilience. Resilience goes beyond an individual hence the use of the terms family resilience, community resilience and regional resilience. Since life in traditional African societies is communal, it may be necessary to define community resilience. Healy (2006) defines community or cultural resilience as the capacity of a distinct community or cultural system to absorb disturbances and reorganise while undergoing change so as to retain key elements of structure and identity that preserve its distinctiveness. Community resilience may also be defined as ―the ongoing and developing capacity of a community to account for its vulnerabilities and develop capabilities that aid that community in (1) preventing , mitigating and withstanding the stress of a health incident (2) recovering in a way that restores the community to a state of self- sufficiency and at least the same level of
48
health and social functioning after a health incident and (3) using knowledge from a past response to strengthen the community‘s ability to withstand the next health incident‖.
(Chandra, Acosta, Stern, Uscher-Pines, Williams, Yueng, Garnett & Meredith, 2011:XV).
2.4.1 Resilience in Social Work
The concept of resilience has developed roots in social work although social work research related to it is relatively new. There is a growing interest in recognising spirituality as a source of strength and resilience is social work practice. In a study of African American women in Kansas in the USA, Banerjee and Pyles (2004) found that the women reported that their spirituality helps them manage their difficult situations by reassuring them that their higher power is looking after them. They also argued that spirituality helps to lessen the impact of problems on them, find inner peace, build self- esteem. It also helps to nurture hope despite the challenges of life.
There are many ways in which people‘s resilience is manifested (Rubin, Malkinson &
Witztum, 2012). Resilience may result in an individual bouncing back to a previous normal functioning or not showing any negative effect. Resilience is a process and not a trait. This suggests that people are not born resilient but their resilience develops as they interact with the environment. Agents of socialisation such as the family, the school and the community also promote resilience. According to Pienaar (2012), promoting resilience is critical as it contributes to prevention of negative outcomes for people challenged by stressors such as those posed by HIV and AIDS.
The American Psychological Association (APA) suggests the following ten ways to build resilience:
49
maintaining good relationship with close family members, friends and others,
avoiding seeing crisis and stressful events as unbearable problems,
accepting circumstances that cannot be changed,
developing realistic goals and moving towards them,
taking decisive actions in adverse situations,
looking for opportunities of self-discovery after a struggle with loss,
developing self-confidence,
keeping a long term perspective and considering stressful events in a broader context,
maintaining a hopeful outlook, expecting good things and visualising what is wished,
taking care of one‘s mind, body, exercising regularly and paying attention to one‘s own needs and feelings.
Resilience is affected by the strength of an individual, their family, community and the culture in which they live. Closely linked to resilience are resilience factors. Those factors are things within a person‘s environment that assist in developing self- confidence and resilience. These resilience factors provide a cushion or protection against negative and harmful influences (Pienaar, 2012).
2.4.2. Religion and Spirituality as Sources of Resilience
Spirituality is regarded as a source of resilience (Wong & Vinsky, 2008; Cascio, 2012).
According to Martin and Martin (2002), spirituality can give people strength to go where there is a threat and it also gives courage and encouragement amidst suffering and
50
death. Religion can provide a world-view that helps give purpose and meaning to suffering.
Crawford, Brown and Bonham (2006) note that spirituality facilitates resilience in four major ways: by helping build attachment relationships, by opening access to social support, by guiding conduct and moral values and by offering opportunities for personal growth and development. An inverse relationship exists between spirituality and depression among youths. Apart from improving resilience, spirituality has also been found to improve self-confidence and life purpose among youths in stressful situations.
Writing in the context of America, Corrrigan, McCorkle, Schell and Kidder (2003) argue that research has it that those members of the general population who define themselves as religious and spiritual have less psychological distress, more life satisfaction and greater achievements of life goals.