This book is the product of an ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration, coordinated through the Successful Societies Program (SSP) of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), and led by Peter Hall and Michèle Lamont. The project seeks to explore the question: How do social groups sustain and advance their well-being in the face of both the intensification and extension of market competition throughout social life? That is, what forms of social resilience do we see in the neoliberal era?
The use of the term resilience has become increasingly fashionable in academic and policymaking discussions, especially since the global economic crisis. It has also, however, caused considerable controversy, especially around the question of whether the popularity of the term reflects a wider concern (held by those using the term) to displace responsibility for social ills, shifting it onto the shoulders of those who are implored simply to be “resilient” in the face of social injustice. Put simply, for some, “resilience” is a call for subalterns to stoically embrace their position within the social hierarchy, and to get on with life while accepting their plight. The contributors to Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, in contrast, distance themselves from this “individualist” approach to resilience, developing a notion of social resilience, considered essential for societies to be successful, that focuses especially upon the institutional resources that enable people to live “healthy, secure and fulfilling lives” (p. 20). In particular, the contributions show how neoliberalism is not just a process that is passively received but one which can be acted upon, and therefore changed: typically through the state, but also through more informal groupings, including family and friend networks, collective imaginaries, and cultural frameworks.
Each of the chapters explores one or all of these themes: the development of neoliberalism, and the different forms of social resilience that have emerged in response and have thereby acted to mediate its manifestation in particular contexts. This includes a consideration by Jane Jenson and Ron Levi of ways in which proponents of more egalitarian outcomes have adapted what we might think of as more “neoliberal-friendly” discourse—in the form of a “social investment perspective”—in order to argue for the importance of state-led facilitation of participation in the labor market. In this way, the social investment perspective enables proponents of more egalitarian outcomes to cohere with neoliberal discourse, “by mapping as much as possible their own priorities, vocabularies, and institutions onto the political and cultural narratives of neo-liberalism” (p. 110).
The book presents a range of original empirical research. For instance, Leanne S. Son Hing presents findings from psychological research to highlight how support for neoliberal values is also associated with what is termed “modern racism”—that is, the view that neoliberalism has ushered in an era of meritocracy, and as such any remaining inequalities are considered “just” in the sense that they reflect faults or failings of members of the disadvantaged groups themselves, rather than reflecting systemic unfairness or inequity. For “modern racists,” for instance, blacks are considered more likely to be poor due to their higher rate of laziness. In terms of resilience to such forms of discrimination, a greater sense of belonging—either to the institutions that might seek to mitigate racist tendencies or to the devalued group that is discriminated against—is associated with higher levels of resilience and lower levels of stress. Conversely, those in devalued groups who also hold neoliberal values are those who suffer most in terms of the stress generated by the experience of being devalued.
Other contributions to the book focus more on macro-level national trends to consider the ways in which the greater or lesser extent of neoliberalization in different national contexts has resulted in different outcomes in terms of citizens’ well-being. On the basis of survey data, Lucy Barnes and Peter Hall conclude that inequality of well-being within countries has increased markedly throughout the period of neoliberalism. Variation in well-being, moreover, is shown to be largely determined by the degree of social interconnectedness—with trade union density, associational membership, and ties to family and friends each being associated with increased levels of well-being. Strikingly, “strong ties to family have an effect on well-being equivalent to a movement up five income deciles” (p. 244). The positive effect of association is especially important for those with lower incomes, although it is for this group that associations are also least available. Trade unions also represent a significant factor that improves well-being, even when individual membership is controlled for (i.e., well-being is higher in countries with a higher level of trade union membership, even for those individuals not in trade unions).
The question remains, however, how such social institutions and associations—which act as the source of resilience—themselves are instantiated and sustained. Different contributors provide different answers to this question. In his chapter on Quebec, Gérard Bouchard points to the role of national myths as a source of social cohesion. Clyde Hertzman and Arjumand Siddiqi highlight the possibility of local communities providing the conditions for human development, but they also note that in the absence of direct government provision, this is more likely to fail than it is to succeed. Ann Swidler discusses the role of chieftaincy in rural Malawi to uncover the way in which interdependence is constructed. Marcos Ancelovici compares the experience of two French trade unions—CFDT and CGT—to show how an openness to a plurality of repertoires of action, combined with strong leadership, was necessary for their ability to adapt to neoliberal contextual challenges.
This being an edited collection, the underlying argument is not as explicitly and consistently articulated as it might have been if it were a research monograph. However, there is clearly an underlying core argument—that the depth and interlocking-ness of social institutions determine the degree to which social well-being can be maintained in the face of the external shock presented by the ascendance of neoliberalism as a global (policy) norm and mode of production. This clearly adds to the already impressive range of contributions, particularly within the comparative political economy literature, regarding the scope for institutional, social, and cultural obstacles to, and variations within, neoliberalism.
The next step—it seems to me—is to identify more substantive explanations for when, and why, deeply interconnected social institutions are able to pose a significant challenge to the ongoing pressures of neoliberalism, and when they are not. How can societies, and the individuals who inhabit them, eradicate the underlying social mechanisms sustaining neoliberalism itself? When do institutions constrain, rather than enable, such attempts at eradication? And how do we challenge and overcome those institutional constraints when they present themselves? Without denying that social institutions are sometimes sources of social resilience, those under discussion have also tended to coexist with the ascendance of neoliberalism, and so it seems reasonable to assume that they are also likely to be contradictory in that they are partly compatible with neoliberalism. As such, I would like to have seen a complementary discussion of the way in which (if at all) particular social institutions facilitate the maintenance of neoliberalism, as well as acting to constrain its greatest excesses.
