Nov. 12, 2024
In the beloved cartoon series The Smurfs, our little blue friends had a peculiar linguistic habit. They would often replace words with "smurf" or its variations. This led to exchanges like, "Can you smurf me that smurfberry?" Or, "Sure, I'll smurf it right over!"
While silly and charming for a kids' cartoon, when this practice sneaks into real-life language, it can lead to confusion or a loss of precise meaning. Interestingly, we're seeing this phenomenon in government communications with the overuse of the word "resilience."
4 Reasons to Stop Overusing 'Resilience'
It has become the trendy word for describing any form of preparedness, adaptability, or strength in government policies and programs. We hear about resilient infrastructure, communities, economic policies, climate strategies — too many resilient X, Y, and Zs to count. And when a word is used in that many contexts, it starts to lose its impact and specific meaning.
But why exactly does this overuse lead to a loss of meaning?
The buzzword effect
Resilience has become a government catchphrase. It's tossed around in policy documents, press releases, presentations, and speeches, often without a clear understanding of its implications. This superficial use can result in the term being applied broadly without meaningful action or change.
Conceptual vagueness
Resilience is a complex concept that can mean different things depending on the context. Similarly, in government parlance, resilience can refer to anything from economic stability to disaster preparedness. This flexibility, while useful, can lead to a lack of specificity that makes it challenging to apply the concept effectively in practice.
Overgeneralization
When resilience is smurfed in front of numerous terms, it can lead to overgeneralization. "Resilient infrastructure," for instance, can encompass everything from reinforced buildings to adaptive urban planning. Without clear definitions, these terms can become meaningless.
Focus shift
The overuse of the word might shift attention away from other critical aspects of governance, such as sustainability or equity. While a "resilient economy" sounds great, it might not address underlying issues like income inequality or environmental degradation.
Don't get me wrong — resilience is a crucial concept in governance. But when we use it to describe everything from minor policy adjustments to major national security strategies and infrastructure projects, we dilute its power.
Don't get me wrong — resilience is a crucial concept in governance. But when we use it to describe everything from minor policy adjustments to major national security strategies and infrastructure projects, we dilute its power. We risk turning a meaningful concept into bureaucratic jargon that can leave the audiences that we need to reach scratching their heads.
Nowhere is this more felt than at the local level. With every federal agency releasing "resilience" programs, many communities are left applying to any resilience program with little understanding of how, for example, a FEMA resilience program is different than an U.S. Department of Transportation resilience program. There are an overwhelming number of such programs, and they often have completely different aims and eligibility requirements but few resources to understand their nuances. Many communities apply to the wrong resilience programs for their very specific needs and, when they are not awarded these grants, they are left confused, angry, and deflated.
Perhaps it's time for us to become more precise in our language. Instead of relying on "resilience" as a catchall, we could describe specific outcomes like "rebound," "robustness," "extensibility," and "adaption." Or we could describe what we are doing: "sensing," "anticipating," "adapting," or "learning." By doing so, we might just save "resilience" from becoming meaningless.
So, the next time you are drafting or reviewing a plan, report, presentation or policy brief that leans heavily on "resilience," ask yourself: Are you smurfing this word, or are you truly conveying its intended meaning in the context of governance and public policy? And, more importantly, what specific outcomes and actions are being proposed beyond this potentially vague terminology?
The views expressed herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. government.
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES
