Advertisement

The Question of ‘Identity’ in Resilience Research. Considerations from a Sociological Point of View

  • Benjamin RamppEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

At the core of resilience research lies the question of the interrelationship between continuity and change, or, more precisely, their reciprocal, dialectical dependence: how is continuity possible in the face of change and even more so, how can change be a prerequisite for continuity?

References

  1. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T. & Douglas, D. G. (eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bühl, W. L. (1990). Sozialer Wandel im Ungleichgewicht. Zyklen, Fluktuationen, Katastrophen. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  4. Bürkner, H.-J. (2010). Vulnerabilität und Resilienz. Forschungsstand und sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchungsperspektiven. IRS Working Paper 43. Erkner: Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning. https://leibniz-irs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/IRS_Working_Paper/wp_vr.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2018).
  5. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 (8), 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christmann, G. B. & Heimann, T. (2017). Understanding divergent constructions of vulnerablity and resilience: Climate change discourses in the German cities of Lübeck and Rostock. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 35 (2), 120–143.Google Scholar
  7. Christmann, G. & Ibert, O. (2012). Vulnerability and resilience in a socio-spatial perspective. A social-scientific approach. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 70, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christmann, G. B., Balgar, K. & Mahlkow, N. (2014). Local constructions of vulnerability and resilience in the context of climate change. A comparison of Lübeck and Rostock. Social Sciences 3 (1), 142–159. http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/3/1/142 (accessed on 16 May 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christmann, G., Kilper, H. & Ibert, O. (2019). Resilient cities. Theoretical conceptualisations and observations about the discourse in the social and the planning sciences. In B. Rampp, M. Endress & M. Naumann (eds.), Resilience in social, cultural and political spheres (pp. 121–147). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  10. Christmann, G., Ibert, O., Kilper, H. & Moss, T. (2012). Vulnerability and resilience from a socio-spatial perspective. Towards a theoretical framework. IRS Working Paper 45. Erkner: Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning. http://www.resilience-berlin.de/download/wp_vulnerability.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2018).
  11. Cumming, G. S. & Collier, J. (2005). Change and identity in complex systems. Ecology and Society 10 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art29/.
  12. Elias, N. (1997 [1977]). Towards a theory of social processes. British Journal of Sociology 48 (3), 355–383.Google Scholar
  13. Elias, N. (2009). Essays III. On sociology and the humanities. The collected works of Norbert Elias, Volume 16, R. Kilminster & S. Mennell (eds.). Dublin: UCD Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elias, N. (2012a [1939]). On the process of civilisation: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. The collected works of Norbert Elias, Volume 3, S. Mennell, E. Dunning, J. Goudsblom & R. Kilminster (eds.). Dublin: UCD Press.Google Scholar
  15. Elias, N. (2012b [1970]). What is sociology? The collected works of Norbert Elias, Volume 5, A. Rogner, K. Liston & S. Mennell (eds.). Dublin: UCD Press.Google Scholar
  16. Endress, M. (2015). The social constructedness of resilience. Social Sciences 4 (3), 533–545. http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/4/3/533 (accessed on 08 May 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Endress, M. (2019). On the socio-historical constructiveness of resilience. In B. Rampp, M. Endress & M. Naumann (eds.), Resilience in social, cultural and political spheres (pp. 41–58). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  18. Endress, M. & Rampp, B. (2014). Resilienz als Prozess transformativer Autogenese. Schritte zu einer soziologischen Theorie. Behemoth. A Journal on Civilisation 7 (2), 73–102. https://ojs.ub.uni-freiburg.de/behemoth/article/view/834/798 (accessed on 08 May 2018).
  19. Endress, M. & Rampp, B. (2015). Resilienz als Perspektive auf gesellschaftliche Prozesse. Auf dem Weg zu einer soziologischen Theorie. In M. Endress & A. Maurer (eds.), Resilienz im Sozialen. Theoretische und empirische Analysen (pp. 33–55). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  20. Fath, B. D., Dean, C. A. & Katzmair, H. (2015). Navigating the adaptive cycle: An approach to managing the resilience of social systems. Ecology & Society 20 (2), 24. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss2/art24/ (accessed on 09 May 2018).
  21. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15 (4), 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/ (accessed on 09 May 2018).
  22. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  23. Gunderson, L. H. & Holling, C. S. (eds.) (2002). Panarchy. Understanding transformation in human and natural systems. Washington et al.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  24. Holling, C. S. (1994). Simplifying the complex. The paradigms of ecological function and structure. Futures 26 (6), 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holling, C. S. & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy. Understanding transformation in human and natural systems (pp. 25–62). Washington et al.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H. & Peterson, G. D. (2002). Sustainability and panarchies. In L. H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy. Understanding transformation in human and natural systems (pp. 63–102). Washington et al.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, R. (2000). Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology 48 (3), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keck, M. & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde 67 (1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Lichtblau, K. (2000). “Vergemeinschaftung” und “Vergesellschaftung” bei Max Weber. Eine Rekonstruktion seines Sprachgebrauchs. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 29 (6), 423–443.Google Scholar
  31. Lynch, M. (2016). Social constructivism in science and technology studies. Human Studies 39 (1), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1 (6), 894–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J. & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances 1 (4), e1400217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinch, T. J. & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14 (3), 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Resilience Alliance (n.y.). Panarchy. https://www.resalliance.org/panarchy (accessed on 09 May 2018).
  36. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  37. Schütz, A. (1953). Common-sense and scientific interpretation in human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simmel, G. (2009 [1908]). Sociology: Inquiries into the construction of social forms. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2), 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ (accessed on 09 May 2018).
  40. Weber, M. (1976 [1920/21]). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie. J. Winckelmann (ed.), 5. rev. ed., Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations