Resilience as the Millennium Rorschach: Response to Smith and Gorell Barnes

Abstract

Responds to comments by G. G. Barnes (see record [rid]1999-05537-002[/rid]) and G. Smith (see record [rid]1999-05537-003[/rid]) on the article by M. Rutter (see record [rid]1999-05537-001[/rid]) concerning the concept of and findings on resilience, and the implications for family therapy. It is suggested that Smith may, if she wishes, consider resilience as meaning the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, or as reflecting notions of dominance or subordination, or as referring to a single individual quality. It is important, however, to recognize that these uses bear no relationship whatsoever to either the way in which the term is used by most resilience researchers or to anything proposed in Rutter's paper. To the contrary, as Barnes rightly emphasizes, resilience is presented as a fluid multifaceted concept that requires a focus on social relationships and social groups quite as much as on individuals. The challenge for family therapists is to consider how the empirical research findings confirm the validity of their approach and how far they raise questions that call for some short of shift of emphasis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)