Realizing Shared Vulnerability in the Social Connection Model of Resilience Against the Depoliticization of Filipino Resilience in the Grit Model
Issue No. 34
By Carla C. Jane Zitazate
University of Santo Tomas | carlajane.zitazate.ab@ust.edu.ph
Editor’s note: Over the next issues, BTG will be publishing commentaries by junior scholars on the papers presented at Resilience: A Workshop for Women Doing Philosophy, held last May 27-30, 2023 at University of the Philippines-Los Baños. Each commentary is prefaced by the abstract of the paper it is addressing. The papers from the workshop will be published in the anthology Resilience: The Brown Babe’s Burden, edited by Tracy Llanera (forthcoming from Routledge).
“Uncoupling Resilience from Violence: The Grit Model vs. The Social Connection Model of Resilience”
By Maria Lovelyn Paclibar
Ateneo de Manila University | mpaclibar@ateneo.edu
Is violence necessary for the development of resilience? Dominant discourses based on the framework of what I call the “grit model of resilience” reinforce the belief that it is. In this essay, I argue that while violence and other forms of trauma can catalyze practices of resilience, they do not enable nor sustain resilience as a creative response to crisis. Furthermore, I argue that continuous exposure to trauma hinders the development of resilience. By critically analyzing discourses on Filipino resilience supported by the grit model, I map out how the belief in the necessity of violence is formed through “epistemic maneuverings.” First, the discourses tend to inflate the role of violence from a mere trigger into something that positively enhances resilience. Second, the discourses tend to collapse the distinction between preventable and inevitable suffering. Such maneuverings depoliticize individual and collective suffering, including those that stem from violence, by effectively shutting down dissent. I thus counter the grit model of resilience with an alternative framework that foregrounds the socio-political dimension of resilience. I refer to this as the “social connection model of resilience.” I end with a brief overview of how some existing Philippine cultural practices for coping with disaster contain basic elements that constitute the social connection model of resilience.
Keywords: violence, systemic violence, resilience, grit, Filipino resilience, vulnerability, social connection
I was four years old when Super Typhoon Reming hit Albay. The memory is vague, but I remember losing the other half of my tsinelas to the flood. I was not allowed to go out of the house for a day until all debris were removed. I distinctly remember losing my friend—she was five at that time. Her lifeless body was found at the mouth of San Lorenzo River. My grandparents would tell me many more stories of what was lost at that time.
I was eighteen when Super Typhoon Rolly devastated the whole Bicol Region. We had no power supply for two months, but compared to other barrios, we were lucky to have electricity before Christmas. Otherwise, we would have celebrated in the dark—as is common in our region due to typhoons. There was also no SIM and internet signals; if you know someone from Bicol, you wouldn’t know if they were safe or not until two weeks when SIM signals barely went to one bar. It is fascinating to also note that Albay is home of the Daragang Magayon or the Mayon Volcano. We welcome typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions as part of our everyday life.
Because of these experiences, I could personally relate to the author’s criticisms of the grit model of resilience juxtaposed with the social connection model. I will elaborate on these criticisms as well as the alternative to the grit model, namely, the social connection model, by providing a brief summary of the text. Then, I will extend the author’s discussion by highlighting the depoliticization of the burden of resilience placed upon Filipino victims. Finally, to conclude my discussions, I will shortly highlight how the social connection model of resilience can avert this violence and alleviate the suffering of the victims by relating it to the anecdotes previously presented.
In the text, Dr. Paclibar demonstrates the problematic idea of resilience in Filipino communities that centers on violence and other forms of trauma as a catalyst for the practice of resilience. The author characterizes this as the grit model of resilience. She argues that continuous exposure to trauma actually hinders the development of trauma; thus, she proposed an alternative to the grit model, namely, the social connection model. The social connection model highlights the shared vulnerability and responsibility of Filipinos.
Furthermore, the author notes that resilience is often portrayed in experiences of natural disasters in reference to so-called “cultures of disasters.” The author distinguishes resilience in response to forces of nature from resilience in the grit model. She argues that violence in the grit model involves intentionality of action which forces of nature lack because these cannot be subjected to a system of values and symbolic interpretation. Therefore, resilience to forces of nature or in natural disasters cannot be classified under the grit model of resilience.
Meanwhile, the author asserts that commonly held beliefs on violence as an essential part of development of resilience in persons as well as good citizenship formation are misleading. While the author agrees that violence can catalyze the practice of resilience, as suggested by the metaphysical concept of conatus and neuroplasticity in neurology, it does not enable or sustain resilience as the ability to respond creatively. In actuality, continued exposure to trauma ultimately reduces the capacity for resilience, thus hindering the development of the individual and bringing about negative effects on citizen formation in the long run.
Furthermore, the author reveals some issues on the commonly held belief that resilience is synonymous to strength or “tibay.” She does this by illustrating the individualistic attitude in the academe and among typhoon victims and Filipino athletes in relation to the grit model. Those who subscribe to the grit model of resilience believe that their success is only a result of their capacity to withstand negative experiences and trauma through their strength. By highlighting the role of individual strength, the grit model accepts violence even if it is unjust, overlooks the role of socio-economic factors, and idealizes unreasonable degrees of pressure and stress as key factors in achieving success. Consequently, it effectively shuts down any form of dissent such that those who attempt to resist this violence are unfairly criticized as weak, lazy, and meddlesome. This way, the blame is placed upon the individual instead of the problematic system or culture, particularly that of the current patriarchal culture.
Those who subscribe to the grit model of resilience believe that their success is only a result of their capacity to withstand negative experiences and trauma through their strength. By highlighting the role of individual strength, the grit model accepts violence even if it is unjust, overlooks the role of socio-economic factors, and idealizes unreasonable degrees of pressure and stress as key factors in achieving success.
Upon identifying the issues present in the glorification of violence in the grit model, the author proposes an alternative to the grit model, namely, the social connection model. Whereas the grit model illustrates an individualistic attitude, the social connection model highlights an other-orientedness through “radical interconnectivity in shared vulnerability.”1 We realize that our being is undeniably intertwined with the existence of others, that is, we are all subjected to the same socio-political conditions. Any action performed ultimately produces consequences that affect not just ourselves but others as well. Therefore, in the social connection model, we exhibit compassion and responsibility towards others’ welfare and we pay more attention to how we can show genuine care for and support others to ease their sufferings. Finally, the author provides a reinterpretation of the Filipino cultures of bayanihan, fatalism, and humor as illustrated in the social connection model.
In the text, the author criticizes the grit model for blurring the distinction between unavoidable and preventable suffering. This results in further glorification of the problematic role of violence and consequently depoliticizes resilience. The grit model only reinforces violence by endorsing the blind acceptance of any harm or injury inflicted upon oneself even when it is unjust. Moreover, it shuts down resistance against this injustice, removing both accountability and responsibility from the liable individual or group. The author relates this to Iris Marion Young’s “liability model of responsibility.” She opposes Young’s model by arguing that the complex nature of structural injustice and systemic violence makes it impossible to have an identifiable source of trauma. Therefore, no individual or institution can be fully and solely held responsible for these injustices and violence. In my succeeding argument, the institutions I will specifically refer to are the government institutions.
I will both agree and disagree with the author’s contention to Young’s “liability model of responsibility.” I agree with the author that neither the individual nor any institution can be identified as the sole source of structural injustice and systemic violence. While inefficiencies in government institutions affect disaster risk preparedness, the individual also plays an important role. A study by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (2019) revealed that only 36% of Filipinos feel they are prepared for natural disasters and only 17% feel that they have adequate insurance for natural calamities.2 Almost half of the respondents (47%) also reported that they had not done anything to prepare for natural disasters within the past years. It is possible that individuals have the capacity to prepare for natural disasters, to avail of life, home, health, or asset insurance policies, and to strengthen their homes.
However, the study also revealed that lack of income to prepare for disasters (47.5%) was the top reason for the unpreparedness. This is why while I agree that government institutions cannot fully be held responsible because individual efforts could also improve disaster risk reduction and management, I disagree with the author’s contention against the “liability model of responsibility” because I wish to highlight the role of the government in mitigating the effects of natural disasters. This means that poverty and unemployment —which the government could also mitigate—hinder the Filipinos’ capacity to be prepared for natural disasters. Hence, if Filipinos have enough income to build strong homes, to not settle on hazardous areas, and to avail of insurances and emergency supplies, then the effects of these natural disasters could have been reduced. The government’s integrity and competence really play an essential role in not just disaster risk management but also in developing resilience: Filipinos could have experienced less trauma and suffering with proper disaster response from the government.
Therefore, while the author claims that natural disasters are unavoidable sufferings, the adequate disasters risk preparedness and management of the government, as well as the overall effectiveness of Philippine governance, could have mitigated the effects of these natural disasters. Thus, by “intentionally” underperforming in their roles and failing to address the socio-political issues that affects disaster risk preparedness, the government contributes to and is liable for the suffering and pain of the people. Indirectly, violence is inflicted by government institutions.
Finally, the social connection model provides a resolution to the problems of the grit model of resilience. By realizing that our being, including our joys and sufferings, is understood against the backdrop of a shared sense of vulnerability, we come to see that it is not wealth, power, or fame that separates us but our refusal to take responsibility for each other as part of one community—the Filipino community.
In my experiences of disasters, the various community relief efforts and sympathy outweigh government aid. It has been the communities’ efforts that were neither short of thought nor lacking in urgency. The aid communities provide each other from the day after the typhoon continues for weeks, as opposed to the government’s relief operations that take place two to three weeks after the typhoon, when most victims are already slowly recovering—in a way, a futile attempt to help. Thus, I end my discussion by emphasizing the role of social responsibility as illustrated by the author. Through the social connection model, I hope that we hold ourselves responsible for the suffering of others and not just our own, so that resilience may divert itself from violence and towards charity and support.
Dr. Paclibar highlights Judith Butler’s insight on our ‘radical interconnectivity’ as seen in our ‘shared vulnerability.’ She would use this insight in her formulation of the social connection model.
Gabriel Olano, “Philippines Unprepared for Disasters, Says Harvard Study,” Insurance News, February 14, 2019.