Resilience Revisited: Why We Need to Encourage Young People to Be More Resilient

Dennis Relojo-Howell

Department Founder and Managing Director, Psychreg, United Kingdom

*Correspondence to: Dr. Dennis Relojo-Howell, Department Founder and Managing Director, Psychreg, United Kingdom.

Copyright © 2022 Dr. Dennis Relojo-Howell. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

In the society I formerly knew, the process of growing up meant gaining a measure of durability learned through life’s up and down gests, and slipping the sins and fears of nonage by acquiring the division needed to take care of yourself as you develop. Research has shown that resilience may be re-framed as an aesthetics of life-making in the everyday, requiring the employment of those micro-strategies which help one to live with the present despite an uncertain future [1].

The resilience mindset, unfortunately, is changing [2]. More accurately, a more recent attitude is being dictated upon us via way of means of an entitled and pampered faction of society captivated with microaggressions and ethical subculture and reason on transitioning from the attempted and true `rub-some-dirt-on-it` mentality to the woke-age method of reaching electricity and sympathy abruptly via way of means of swaddling your self in a blanket of victimisation [3].

The harsh reality of the problem is that everybody faces adversity at instances of their lives, however it’s far in the way you address that adversity that in the end shapes your ethical individual and defines the extent of resiliency you may observe to tough conditions as you grow. [4-6]. Moreover, in our courageous new global beaten with an indulgence of pity-seekers, the misplaced artwork of resilience is turning into much less and much less possibly to be a genetic trait passed right all the way down to the subsequent generation.

I say this only slightly facetiously because while scientists generally agree that resilience is certainly influenced by genetic factors [7], there is also significant work demonstrating that a person’s resilience level is governed by a combination of genetics, personal history, environment and situational context [8-10]. In other words, the trait is partially inherited and partially cultivated. Moreover, if the cultivation portion of an individual’s resilience is eliminated, that leaves a massive gap in the ability of any individual to deal with life’s adversities [11].

In essence, resilient people do not let adversity define them because they have been conditioned (cultivated) to perceive bad times as a temporary situation. The perception that resilient human beings have in themselves fortifies their intellectual power and lets in them to look in a clean manner through the awful instances even as dynamically know-how that they’ll emerge from those hard instances greater informed and skilled in unwanted situations, and consequently greater mentally successful to evolve to adversity.

While serious adversity is often associated with educational under‐performance or failure, this is not necessarily always the case. There is evidence that in certain circumstances vulnerable people may display resilience thanks to academic or social achievement in the domain of education. Young human beings in care have normally endured widespread adversity in their lives, mainly to the selection to confess them to care, and possibly additionally for the duration of their time in care. This cumulative adversity can also additionally have an effect on their academic attainment. Yet at least a few younger human beings in care make accurate academic development. Doing properly in care appears related to doing properly in education. It is argued that the ones involved with the development of younger human beings in care want to comprehend the significance of their education, and what can also additionally assist or obstruct their academic development (Gilligan, 2007) [12,13].

Rusch et al. (2015) [14] found out that the psychological resistance among women exposed to assaultive trauma, two key factors were associated with an individual’s resilience in the face of adversity: social support and mastery. Social help is self-explanatory. The study found that individuals who suggested robust help systems had been much less likely to increase psychiatric issues and much more likely to get over them in the event that they did. Mastery, on the other hand, was slightly less intuitive. In the study, mastery is defined as the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as having control and influence over their own life circumstances, essentially their (learned) ability to cope with challenging circumstances. And while we can’t necessarily control our social structures, we can increase our resilience by developing a stronger sense of mastery in our own lives.

Sambu and Mhongo (2019) [15] contend that gender is a factor that contributes to resilience among traumatised individuals and that men generally have a higher level of resilience than women. This finding was attributed to the fact that men tend to communicate less during a time of adversity, and they end up getting less empathy as compared to women who communicate more and earn empathy. In other words, the research demonstrates that women tend to use their support systems and men use a more isolated means to reach resilience, substantiating the need for a gender-specific social support structure.

As Walker (2020) [16] argues, future environments and the future states of all complex systems are inherently uncertain. Trying to design and steer them toward some preferred state is bound to fail. Resilience is about keeping options open, learning how to guide, to shepherd, a system within a set of ‘good’ states and avoid crossing into ‘bad’ states. It’s about learning where not to go rather than perfectly controlling where to go.

The strength of a person’s moral character and the value of their life will never be defined by the challenges they encounter but instead by how they have overcome that adversity [17,18]. Children growing up in an abusive home can have considerable harm inflicted upon them, but their responses to this adversity, repeated over years of abuse, becomes an inherent part of their character and manifests as a lasting moral strength. Ultimately our society can be inspired through this sort of wish and perseverance instead of through the victimhood mentality that detracts from extra urgent and optimistic issues.

Bibliography

1. 1. Cahill, H. & Leccardi, C. (2020). Reframing Resilience. In: Wyn, J., Cahill, H., Woodman, D., Cuervo, H., Leccardi, C., Chesters, J. (Eds.), Youth and the new adulthood: Perspectives on children and young People (Vol. 8). Springer.
2. Seccombe, K. (2002). “Beating the odds” versus “changing the odds”: Poverty, resilience, and family policy. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 384-394.
3. Acharya, S. (2017). Case study of peer victimisation of Indian students in New Zealand: Causes and consequences. Psychreg Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 60-69.
4. Noltemeyer, A. L. & Bush, K. R. (2013). Adversity and resilience: A synthesis of international research. School Psychology International, 34(5), 474-487.
5. Ogwuche, C. H., Caleb, O. & Relojo-Howell, D. (2020). Perceived stress and social support as predictors of subjective well-being among university students in Nigeria. Psychology & Society, 1(79), 120-125.
6. Relojo-Howell, D. (2019). Book review of ‘University on Watch: Crisis in the Academy’. Psychreg Journal of Psychology, 3(2), 97-98.
7. Feder, A., Nestler, E. J. & Charney, D. S. (2009). Psychobiology and molecular genetics of resilience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 446-457.
8. Egeland, B., Carlson, E. & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 517-528.
9. Kumpfer, K. L. (2002). Factors and processes contributing to resilience. In Resilience and development (Pp. 179-224). Springer.
10. Wu, G., Feder, A., Cohen, H., Kim, J. J., Calderon, S., Charney, D. S. & Mathé, A. A. (2013). Understanding resilience. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(10).
11. Chavez-Valdez, S. M., Esparza del Villar, O. A., Velasco Moreno, L. R. & Relojo-Howell, D. (2019). Eight crime factor model for youths in Mexican violence context. Psychology & Society, (2), 98-107.
12. Kuha, A., Keawkubthong, H. & Relojo, D. (2018). The development of professional competency of teachers in Thailand: Meanings and implications. Psychreg Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 96-104.
13. Relojo, D., dela Rosa, R. & Pilao, S. J. (2016.) Current developments in reading abilities through phonological processing skills and proficiency in a second language, i-manager’s. Journal on Educational Psychology, 10(2), 45-54.
14. Rusch, H. L., Shvil, E., Szanton, S. L., Neria, Y. & Gill, J. M. (2015). Determinants of psychological resistance and recovery among women exposed to assaultive trauma. Brain and Behavior, 5(4), e00322.
15. Sambu, L. & Mhongo, S. (2019). Age and gender in relation to resilience after the experience of trauma among internally displaced persons (IDPS) in Kiambaa Village, Eldoret East Sub-County, Kenya. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, 7(1), 31-40.
16. Walker, B. (2020). Resilience: what it is and is not. Ecology and Society, 25(2), 11.
17. Bautista, L., Relojo, D., Pilao, S. J., Tubon, G. & Andal, M. (2018). Link between lifestyle and self-regulated development as components of academic performance: Basis for a psychoeducational intervention. Journal on Educational Sciences & Psychology, 8(52), 68-78.
18. Gagani, A., Gemao, J., Relojo, D. & Pilao, S. J. (2016). The dilemma of denial: Acceptance and individual coping among patients with chronic kidney diseases. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 6(2), 45-52.