Individual resilience framing shifts blame onto victims and leaves racist structures untouched.

Evidence

One response to such psychological vulnerability would be to argue that we should find ways of enhancing individuals’ resilience in the light of such negative events and circumstances. However, this response is based on a narrow perspective on resilience that sees it predominantly in terms of psychological resources. This type of response would shift the problem away from the racialized nature of society that directly or indirectly supports racism and discrimination, and away from community action, towards the individual at risk of experiencing racism, placing ever greater burdens on members of marginalized and racialized communities while leaving unchanged, and unchallenged, the underlying causes of racism and health inequalities. Instead, we should focus on community, societal and political responses. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 342

Categorization

  • DEEPTHINKING: A paradigm-shifting critique of the well-intentioned ‘resilience’ discourse — reveals how an ostensibly benevolent framing re-racializes victimhood and protects structures.
  • XREF: Connects to critical-race health literature and to the book’s own stance that definition of anti-Muslim racism is a political act with distributive consequences. — connects to: Resilience-based responses wrongly shift blame from society onto individual victims — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 337; Framing discrimination as individual hate obscures its structural and policy-based causes — Evelyn Alsultany, Antisemitism and Islamophobia The…, 34; Explaining away environmental causes shifts blame onto the victim’s constitution.

Broader Connections