The advantage of a resiliency (sort of) frame
Today, everyone says the word but, how many of those understand that communities may know best?
During my final semester at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, I will be sharing parts of what I found through my process of listening and understanding the communities affected by energy insecurity by diving deeper into aspects of the problematic and also of the project that I am trying to develop. This is the seventh chapter in a series of journal entries for my practicum course.
It is tough to frame resilience issues. It is tough to visualize hidden hardships and things that don’t have what George Lakoff calls “direct causation”. In his book “Don’t think of an elephant,” Lakoff explains this a little more: “We see direct causation all around us: if we push a toy, it topples over; if our mother turns a knob in the oven, flames emerge (…) Throwing a rock to a window is direct causation.”
When causation is direct, the word “cause” is unproblematic. We learn this as children because that´s what we experience. The problem arises with what we cannot experience directly, which is the case of systemic causation. No language in the world has a way in its grammar to express systemic causation. Take climate change, or ecology itself: these are complex systems in which a number of factors come into play.
“We see direct causation all around us: if we push a toy, it topples over; if our mother turns a knob in the oven, flames emerge (…) Throwing a rock to a window is direct causation.”
It´s tough to get an everyday concept of systemic causation for climate change to be understood and incorporated by the general population and everyday communities. And when the systemic causations are ignored, the old frame (“climate change is a called lie by corporations and international interests!”) stays. It is just more complicated for our brains to process this kind of information.
A couple of weeks ago, after finishing the CUNY Resilience Fellowship with other 17 journalists from all over the world, I went to the #Sandy5 march at the Brooklyn Bridge (you can watch a social video piece I did for the AdaptNY website).
The word “resilience” was in the mouth of everyone. Not only politicians and community organizers but also neighbors. I heard that word a lot after a week in touch with academics and public office workers that brought up the same concept a lot.
Complex, non-direct causation related issues are way much tougher to frame in the public conversation, and even for the people facing these issues
I thought about the possibility of, after experiencing the effects of climate change face to face, a need to react against potential extreme weather events moved communities towards adopting a notion that came through science and researchers. Now that everyone seems to at least have heard the concept, we might eventually move through solutions from policy and also, from inside communities. After all, resilience is the way the community (the people, the structure, the services) are ready to absorb the hits of climate and bounce back to its previous equilibrium or to a better situation (hopefully, that´s what will happen to Puerto Rico if the administration does what it has to do).
Fast forward to a couple of weeks later, when as a member of AdaptNY I was part of a series of meetings to discuss how to help building a neighbor-to-neighbor network that will be able to react if an extreme heat wave comes to vulnerable areas such as many around Northern Manhattan. A lot of these areas are “heat pockets”, places that, due to a combination of excess of concrete, badly conditioned buildings and lack of green areas, not only overheat more than others in the City, but also retain that heat during the night. If you don’t have an AC unit (or you cannot pay the utility bills to turn it on), extreme heat can affect your heart condition and even kill you, worsen your asthma (or make your kids get that condition) and impair your health in other ways. s.
A neighbor-to-neighbor solution where dwellers help each other and know who to help if such an event happens cannot come from an external agent. It´s just a proposal to the community, and after they accept it, you have to test it. You need everyone involved: people who know how to identify the most critical areas and get data from them, people who can get in touch with neighbors and get them into this citizen experiment, people who can inform them and also ask them to be more involved in the process and people who can alert the authorities in a strong way to force the policy changes needed to allow the community to be even more resilient.
Slowly, the concept of resilience seems to be a good way to frame how important is to confront climate change, not only for prevention (well, not anymore since its consequences are already here) but also for reaction. But with resilience being a concept that more and more people understand we have a great opportunity to influence the decision-making process at the public policy level more than ever while helping people understand how important it is to get ready now and stop just waiting for a magical solution from the authorities.
Now that the conversation about adaptation of the urban environments is entering the public space, the goal should be to have a long-term view to help communities help themselves. This was exactly what a long-time community organizer and neighbor of the area said in that meeting. As health equity becomes more and more of a concept also inside the public conversation, we will see lots of projects like this network we’re trying to build that have Social Journalism as a key component, and at the same time one piece of strong evidence of how we can serve the public in a different way.
