It is possible that you read the title of today’s post and experienced perplexity. You may be questioning why I would imply in my title that the concept of resilience can be anything other than good; it is an altruistic notion and implies strength. So why the hell would anyone perceive resilience in a negative manner?
Personally, I associate resilience with strictly positive things. To me, resilience is the opposite of failure. It means that someone or something has chosen to stand tall, time and time again, regardless of however many times they’ve been knocked down. It represents having the ability to withstand and endure challenges and struggles without losing faith.
I stumbled across a post on Facebook that a friend of mine shared not too long ago. I can’t remember what it said exactly, but it suggested that the idea of resilience is over-glorified in the sense that people who are referred to as being resilient are people who have endured tremendous hardship and perhaps don’t want to be known as strong, but instead, have their struggles recognized and sympathized with.
I don’t agree with this spin on resilience, but I can understand it.
I wouldn’t say resilience in itself is subjective, but that is not to say that different people can’t interpret it from alternate perspectives. This different interpretation of resilience certainly made me think, and even though I personally don’t agree with it, I can apprehend why some folks might see it in this way.
After seeing this viewpoint on resilience, I further think it could suggest a combination of both ideas towards the matter. Resilience manifests itself in different people and different situations, for lack of a better word, differently. So, who’s to say it can’t be a balance between the two stances?
I suppose resilience is all three things I suggest in my title; good, bad, and both.
ontheedgeofeverything 
