Monitor_Sept 8/8/2003 11:03 am Page 15

CRISIS RECOVERY MONITOR

IS REAL RESILIENCE ATTAINABLE?

Is real resilience attainable?

The concept of resilience — the ability to withstand or
recover from adverse conditions — has come of age in the
wake of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.
Politicians, emergency planners and others talk of the need
to “build”, “engender”, “improve” or “enhance” resilience
in society. Bill Durodie examines what is being proposed
and the extent to which real resilience is achievable in
today’s conditions.

According to the UK Cabinet Office Draft Civil influences. Thus “risk becomes an entity in its own right,
Contingencies Bill, resilience is the ability to handle only minimally subject to human intervention”.2
disruptive challenges, characterised as emergencies,
that can lead to or result in crisis. In particular: “The It is in this relatively passive sense that the Cabinet
aim of building resilience is to reduce susceptibility Office uses the term in much of the proposed bill.
to challenges by reducing the probability of their Hence it states that “risks of disruptive challenge
occurrence and their likely effects, responding effec- must where possible be identified”. This suggests
tively and efficiently when they occur and building that risks are inherently and implacably ‘out there’,
institutions and structures in a way as to minimise waiting to be spotted and acted upon.
the possible effects of disruptions upon them.”1
And, even though the document indicates that, in
The bill suggests that the level of resilience in the some circumstances, “it is possible to prevent disrup-
UK is already high due to the experience of Irish tive challenges occurring by taking action at an early
terrorism, which established a capability within stage”, the language used makes it clear that this is
government, and an awareness among businesses merely a case of anticipating what are considered to
and the public. This strong position is also held to be be inevitable challenges. Thus: “This cycle — antici-
due to a long-standing tradition of effective planning pation, prevention, preparation, response, recovery
and response at the local level. This is being supple- — is at the heart of resilience.”
mented, at an organisational level, by Regional
Resilience Teams located in government offices The notion that it may be possible to shape condi-
throughout the country, and Regional Resilience tions or set the agenda, with a view to obtaining
Forums to bring together the key players. desirable outcomes independently of external forces,
is not considered.
The draft bill indicates the UK government’s
approach to the resilience agenda which, in summa- The Cabinet Office is not alone in this mode of
ry, consists of: thinking. Many leading officials have referred to the
fact that, in their minds, it is “not a matter of if, but
● improved horizon scanning; when” a future terrorist attack will occur. Similarly,
● increased investment; the head of the UK security service recently advised an
● an enhanced counter-terrorism framework; audience in London that it was “only a matter of
● improved business continuity arrangements; and time”, before a crude chemical, biological, radiological
● new civil contingencies legislation. or nuclear weapon was launched on a Western city.3

Unfortunately, by framing the discussion in the fash- Such rhetoric presumes to be challenging an assumed
ionable language of ‘risk’, an element of passivity has complacency towards the issue of terrorism. It is per-
been built in from the outset. This is because, as soci- ceived of (and presented as) resolute and robust. But
ologist Frank Furedi has indicated elsewhere, the it reveals an almost resigned air of fatalism towards
concept of risk nowadays is increasingly connoted in future events — a sense that risks are simply coming
an external and reactive sense, whereby people are to us. It also runs counter to the spirit of the speech
designated as being ‘at risk’ from certain hazards or made by Tony Blair on 11 November 2002 at the

www.rusi.org ● www.janes.com 15
Monitor_Sept 8/8/2003 11:03 am Page 16

CRISIS RECOVERY MONITOR

IS REAL RESILIENCE ATTAINABLE?

Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London, in which he coun- ● new detection equipment and protective clothing;
tenanced against actions “on the basis of a general ● alternative modes to impart appropriate informa-
warning”, which could lead the UK to “doing [the tion; and
terrorists’] job for them”.4 ● new structures of government and integrated
response systems.
In February 2003, the US Department of State issued
the Bush administration’s National Strategy for These solutions still suffer from being responsive in
Combating Terrorism.5 This noted that the best form outlook, focusing on means rather than ends. It
of defence is offence. But the very terms used in its appears as if the whole point of being alive has been
comprehensive four-‘D’ strategy — “defeat”, “deny”, narrowed down to merely staying alive. All we need
“diminish” and “defend” — reveal a remarkable do is keep safe and remain alert. Yet surely those
defensiveness. At best, what is being put forward is a who risk their lives fighting fires, or dealing with
series of reactions to the assumed actions of others other emergencies, aspire to more for ensuing gener-
in the war on terror. ations, including their own children, than simply that
they should be able to do the same again?
Beyond passing references to “freedom” and “democ-
racy”, the National Strategy provides no sense of what The technologies we introduce to handle our fears
the US stands for as a society, or how it hopes to are inevitably shaped by our vision of the future. If
promote this to the rest of the world. Rather, it is a this is a narrow, apocalyptic one, rather than an
reiteration of what the US is opposed to. It is precise- ambitious, future-oriented one, then we are likely to
ly this responsive mode that undermines the real constrain ourselves with it. Ironically, this may
meaning of resilience, which is not just to anticipate impact adversely on our ability to handle crises.
and respond, but to orientate and build. Indeed, our obsession with improbable dangers may
distract us from more mundane yet plausible risks,
and lead us to divert social resources accordingly.

Some academics and social commentators have sug-

News Team/Stephen Pond: 0544961

gested that we now live more isolated lives in an

increasingly disaggregated society compared to previ-
ous generations. Indeed, the more networked we seem
to have become, with all the new gadgets at our dispos-
al in a narrow, technically fixated way, the more we
seem to have fragmented at the human or social level.
As the eminent Cambridge philosopher Onora O’Neill
recently remarked; “There is no shortage of informa-
tion today, but how much of it is two-way?”6
Tony Blair believes that. the mentality of reacting “on the
basis of a general warning” would be doing the terrorists’ Many proposed technological solutions seem to
job for them. make the problem worse rather than better. This is
because encouraging us to be suspicious of others
accentuates the trend towards social atomisation,
The idea that it may be possible to put forward a effectively pushing us further apart. Real resilience
positive vision for society is rarely entertained. Yet requires bringing people together by engaging them
surely it is by establishing one’s aims and values, and with a common purpose, thereby enhancing their
then pursuing these, that one stands the most chance sense of confidence and spirit of camaraderie.
of winning the battle for hearts and minds, both on
the domestic front and further afield. It may accord- Resilience may be a function of technique and compe-
ingly be possible to convince those who are disaffect- tence, but ultimately real resilience is about attitude or
ed to co-operate in future. will. Engendering such an attitude requires a cultural
focus that has rarely been discussed since the events of
Technical fixations two years ago. It is a qualitative shift that cannot be
Within the discussions that emerged after 11 quantified in financial terms. Indeed, if we are not
September 2001, in addition to a reactive mode and careful, the vast sums being poured into the resilience
the assumed urgency those events demanded, there agenda may simply feed a new bureaucracy, as well as
was a proclivity (which still remains) to put forward making us more isolated and insecure.
technical solutions to the issue of resilience. The
usual list consists of: Real resilience
Real resilience has four key components: knowing,
● better surveillance and intelligence; judging, engaging and acting. However, these are
● effective models for predicting behaviour; not as unproblematic as they might appear within

16 www.rusi.org ● www.janes.com
Monitor_Sept 8/8/2003 11:03 am Page 17

CRISIS RECOVERY MONITOR

IS REAL RESILIENCE ATTAINABLE?

the context of contemporary society.

The pursuit of knowledge has, in certain circles,

become assumed to be both impossible and a distrac-
tion from more immediate, vocational or practical
orientations. Social scientists suggest that there is no
single ‘truth’ but rather many ‘truths’. At best, one
can aspire to know oneself, although this too has
been problematised. To know where one is and seeks
to be going, let alone aspire to do so for the whole of
society, is often seen as positively dangerous.

As a result, we live in remarkably non-judgmental

times. Indeed, not to judge the circumstances, actions
and motivations of others is held to be a positive
virtue. Yet the creeping inability to discern, and be
able to say that one thing is better than another, may

0091524
ultimately disarm us in our search for real resilience.
It is also a remarkable form of self-denial and
self-deception. We live by judging what we do against
The Bush administration has published a National Strategy
the alternatives on offer. Judgment remains the basis for Combating Terrorism.
for acting as moral, conscious beings. It allows us to
push ourselves and others to improve — succeed-
ing in our aims by transcending or overcoming tive light today. It is held to lead to unforeseen or
circumstances and limitations. unintended consequences. Thus even when societies
do act, as they did in the recent conflict in Iraq, this
Engagement in the contemporary world is notice- is usually based upon a narrow risk calculus that
able by its absence or its very limited scope. seeks to weigh up the unforeseen consequences of
Participation rates in all manner of formal social not acting against the unintended consequences of
institutions appear to be in terminal decline, while at being too decisive.
the informal level one can no longer assume a com-
mon bond with others. This mode of thinking has been formalised through
the advent of the so-called ‘precautionary principle’
Critics of the UK government’s approach to civil that, despite its origins among the liberal-left in relation
protection have been quick to remark the extent to to science, has been adopted by those of a more hawk-
which the public appear to be taken as passive bene- ish persuasion in government and the military. These
ficiaries of enlightened and benevolent state protec- now speak of the need for pre-emptive action to deal
tion. Yet, the solution offered — to engage more rep- with the dangers of ‘unknown unknowns’ with all the
resentatives of differing ‘stakeholder’ groups — falls alacrity of the environmental movement.
far short of the active engagement of the population
that the Second World War witnessed. However, without restoring the centrality of know-
ing, judging, engaging and acting, real resilience will
Finally, the will to act is not as strong as one might remain a distant dream. This is not an abstract,
hope. Indeed, action is increasingly seen in a nega- philosophical imperative — it is the role and respon-
Providing protective clothing for the
civilian population may prove useful
once an attack has taken place, but it
is a more reactive than proactive
method of dealing with the problem.
Aireshelta Limited: 0552502

www.rusi.org ● www.janes.com
17
Monitor_Sept 8/8/2003 11:04 am Page 19

MONITOR
IS REAL RESILIENCE ATTAINABLE?

sibility of all who claim to lead. Clarifying and

THE MONITOR
winning the argument for a common social project
and setting about achieving it would necessarily Published ten times a year
build real resilience, which comes from engaged September 2003 Vol 2 No 6
action and outward orientation rather than reaction ISSN 1478-0089 ● £20 US$32
and retrenchment. Editor: Garth Whitty
Assistant Editor: Valerie Seefried
For all the above reasons, we stand a long way from
achieving or establishing real resilience in society. Editorial policy
Contributors’ opinions do not necessarily reflect those of
Indeed, such an attitude and outlook cannot be
the publisher or editor and while every precaution has
established, only nurtured. It requires a significant been taken to ensure that the information contained in
degree of freedom and engagement on the part of this journal is accurate and timely, no liability is accepted
the wider population, and an identification with and by them for errors or omissions, however caused. Articles
support for the values promoted by their leaders. and information contained in this publication are the
copyright of RUSI (unless otherwise stated) and cannot
be reproduced in any form without the written permis-
sion of the publisher. The publisher cannot accept respon-
Bill Durodie is Senior Research Fellow at the sibility for loss or damage to uncommissioned photo-
Centre for Defence Studies, King’s College graphs, manuscripts or magnetic media.
London. He is also Project Co-ordinator for
the Economic and Social Research Council- Co-published by
funded Domestic Management of Terrorist The Royal United Services Institute for Defence
Attacks project at King’s Studies
Whitehall
London
NOTES SW1A 2ET
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7930 5854
1 Consultation Document, June 2003, Executive Summary,
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7321 0943
p5
Email: publications@rusi.org
2 ‘A sociology of health panics’, in Mooney and Bate Internet: www.rusi.org
eds.,Environmental Health: Third World Problems — First
World Preoccupations (Butterworth-Heinemann 1999) and

3 Speech by Eliza Manningham-Buller at the ‘Countering Jane’s Information Group

Terrorism: An International Blueprint’ conference, Royal Sentinel House
United Services Institute, Whitehall, London 17 June 2003
163 Brighton Road
4 http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1731.asp Coulsdon
Surrey, CR5 2YH
5 http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/strategy/ United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8700 3700
6 Speech made at the ‘Communicating the War on Terror’ Fax: +44 (0) 20 8763 1006
conference, Royal Institution, London, 5 June 2003 Email: info@janes.co.uk
Internet: www.janes.com

Printed in the UK

Subscription contact details:

Post: Subscription Department
Jane’s Information Group
Rockwood House
9-17 Perrymount Road
Haywards Heath
West Sussex, RH16 3DH
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1444 475 660

For America call (+ 1 703) 683 3700
For Asia call (+65) +65 6325 0866

Fax: +44 (0) 1444 445 599

For America fax (+1 703) 836 0297
For Asia fax (+65) 6226 1185

Email: janes.subs@rbi.co.uk

www.rusi.org ● www.janes.com
19