Why do we phrase important events or extremely substantial issues like climate change under the umbrella of resiliency? This blog analyzes the attitude of resiliency from a Gen Z perspective and suggests that this framework can cause more harm than good.
Gen Z: The generation that the world’s fate is dependent on. This rhetoric is something many people in my generation have heard since we were little. The Earth is going to overheat, explode, and die, and even though it is not our fault, we have to fix the issue. We are constantly told that the human race will inevitably become extinct if we are not resilient in our efforts to combat climate change. In fourth grade, I was taught that the ice caps were melting and the penguin from Happy Feet would die along with all his polar bear friends. In middle school, my teacher regularly rode a bike to school and said it was our responsibility to ride bikes to reduce carbon emissions. Why was it my responsibility? I did not do anything. Also, what the heck is a carbon emission? In high school, my chemistry teacher was brutally honest and told us we did not have a future to look forward to. He was fired several years later. In college, my friends and I debated whether it was ethical to have children. How could we bring children into a world that seems doomed to die? Meanwhile, politicians, scientists, and teachers, constantly tell us to be resilient and that the world’s fate is in our hands.
Sarah Jaquette Ray wrote a book titled, A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety: How to Keep Your Cool on a Warming Planet. This novel intended to create a guide for the “climate generation,” acknowledging the complexities of climate anxiety and what this anxiety means for the future. Ray posits different ways the climate generation can use their concerns and emotions to cultivate resilience and save the planet.
The word “resilience” is mentioned 70 times in a book that is essentially 146 pages long. According to Ray, resilience from the climate generation is essential for progress and to combat climate change. The Oxford dictionary defines resilience as “the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.” While taking Ray’s claim on resilience at its face value seems plausible, this rhetoric is unfair and a severe understatement. According to the definition of resilience, resilience could also mean finishing an extra rep during a workout, finishing a long and taxing paper, or driving all night to reach a destination. Somehow resilience during a long drive does not seem to equate to being resilient so the human race does not die.
The first time Ray mentions the word resilience is on page seven, where she says
“You have skills and attitudes that the planet needs: social media savvy to create innovative forms of civic life and community organizing; a lack of faith in existing institutions that will motivate you to reorganize those structures; and awareness of the necessity to face an existential crisis with resilience and solidarity” (Ray 7).
In this sentence, she makes bold claims about Gen Z and how our struggles and resource access have defined our resiliency. While, at face value, she may be right, this rhetoric does not sit comfortably with many other people in my generation and me. Ray also cites the BLM as another instance where Gen Z has used their resilience to help combat injustices and proffers this resiliency can be used to help with climate efforts.
“Insights from trauma studies and social movements such as the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), in addition to traditions emphasizing resilience in a variety of movements for social justice, from indigenous to women’s to civil rights, reveal that personal healing and advocating for social change are two sides of the same coin” (Ray 28).
Fighting a system that has betrayed us racially and in terms of climate does not feel resilient; it feels soul-sucking, tiring, and practically impossible, and I think framing the fight as “resilient” is a grotesque underestimation.
I am well aware Ray did not mean any ill will in her claims about resilience and the role resilience plays in climate change. I am not attempting to criticize her character, but I am using her example as just one instance in which resilience rhetoric is overused and misinterpreted. Resilience is a good virtue and necessary for any type of progress, but I think it is inaccurate to phrase the BLM and climate activists as resilient people. They are so much more than resilient. They are defiant, impressive, and admirable. There is constantly another battle comparable to David vs. Goliath for Gen Z. Living in a world where it feels like the world is against you and fighting through adversaries and obstacles can take a toll on any person, let alone an entire generation.
Finally, how about this: what if I do not want to be fucking resilient anymore. The planet dying is not our fault, a fact that all scientists can agree upon. Our government systems have betrayed us, we did not betray them. Being resilient means cleaning up one’s mess or achieving a personal goal; this is not our mess. Why does my generation have to be resilient and clean up the mess of others? Why cannot the rhetoric around climate change be about holding people accountable for their actions? Why do their actions mean we must use our resources and talents to fix their issues? This is not resilience; this is something much more. We do not have to take the responsibility of changing the planet with a smile on our faces and singing kumbaya while the older generations laud our resilience. At this point, I say screw you. Screw you and your idea of resilience. Take responsibility and fix the issue that you made.
Shared by: Anonymous