Resilience and the shift of paradigm in ecology: a new name for an old concept or a different explanatory tool?

Abstract

In the shift from the balance of nature to the flux of nature paradigm, the concept of resilience has gained great traction in ecology. While it has been suggested that the concept of resilience does not imply a genuine departure from the balance of nature paradigm, I shall argue against this stance. To do so, I first show that the balance of nature paradigm and the related conception of a single-state equilibrium relies on what Eliot Sober has named the "Natural State Model (NSM)", suggesting that the NSM has instead been dismissed in the flux of nature paradigm. I then focus on resilience as the main explanatory concept of the flux paradigm. After distinguishing between two main different understandings of "resilience", namely engineering resilience and ecological resilience, I argue that the former is close to the concept of balance or stabilityand still part of the NSM, while the latter is not. Finally, I claim that ecological resilience is inconsistent with the NSM, concluding that this concept-being incompatible with the NSM-is not part of the balance of nature paradigm but rather a genuinely new explanatory tool.