Abstract
Along with risk and trauma, resilience and well-being are key terms for understanding and responding to disaster and suffering in the contemporary world. This article not only explores how memory can be brought into the discourse of post-disaster resilience but also critiques the very language of resilience and well-being as part of an ideological cluster with problematic implications. Resilience is a peculiarly modern form of theodicy, an explanation of misery and suffering that seeks to make sense of these fundamental, but ultimately inexplicable, human experiences. To demonstrate the limits of therapeutic discourse, the article explores Jean Amèry’s account of resentment as well as Emmanuel Levinas’ concept of “useless suffering.” Placing these concepts in the longer discourse about theodicy, the article argues for a wary contextualization of the discourse on resilience, which risks exacerbating exactly that which it seeks to aid.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
