Implications for Resilience

I once wrote about our reliance on depictions of greatness in the wake of failure. Because we’re prone to fail–and failure being verboten, nor accounted for all that well in our social systems, if at all–human beings must bounce back from failure. Bouncing back is hard. Heroes, however, make it look easy. The ease with which heroes bounce back make the visibility of their success arcs important to the resilience economy. We learn how to be resilient from others who were. “If they can do it, so can I!” Information economies stifle thinking too much about failure because we are made to believe we feel good (Han). There is no “fundamental attunement” (Heidegger; Han). We don’t feel feel. We are not affected. If we’re made to believe we’re good all the time and not to feel anything about success after failure, how will we be like Mike? (AJ-12) [148]

[HAN, “The Information Regime”]

One thought on “Implications for Resilience

  1. Yes, Michael does represent resilience. I saw Air (2023) the other day, and his mom, played by Viola Davis, portrayed the highest level of resilience and confidence. I want to be able to do that for my kids (if they allow me (or not?) haha).

    On the flip side, technological exposure and information capitalism sometimes make us doubt our own resilience. Everything is most often perfect on the internet; people handle situations perfectly like the ideal Barbie, and then you begin to wonder how you never EVER have a grasp on things or your feelings. At the end of the day, we are all just humans and very imperfect outside of the technological glare and scrutiny of perfection.

Comments are closed.