THE new buzzword in development circles is no longer 'sustainable development.' It has been replaced by 'resilience.' Academic programs are now emerging, bearing this discourse that might be problematic. It is not just because it has not yet reached a paradigmatic status. It is more because even the scholarly literature that has emerged is rife with contradictions.

Faced with a disturbance, resilience can be misconstrued as simply the ability to bounce back and return to the pre-disturbance state. It can be framed as the ability of any system to maintain its functions despite the presence of perturbations, from natural to social and political. Often, it is something that is imaged as a resource or ability that is already possessed by people. This is being challenged by those who, rightfully, consider the fact that disturbances should be seen as opportunities to examine critically the present system and root out the structural dysfunctions and inequalities, from ill-designed habitats to corrupt governance systems. In this context, resilience is no longer just about bouncing back but about bouncing back and transforming.