The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma

"Even with segments that might raise the hackles or seem idealistic and unattainable, every page of this book is worth reading and discussing."

Whew! That was a challenge to read. Soraya Chemaly has developed a reputation for writing intense and thought-proving work and her new book, The Resilience Myth: New Thinking on Grit, Strength, and Growth After Trauma, is no exception. But be prepared for confusion, contradiction, questions, and myriad other reactions.

Chemaly has taken on the concept of what constitutes "resilience" as commonly understood, and what it could be given a different and less obvious definition. Chemaly writes the "question of resilience then substantively comes down, in its most basic unit, to who and what we will care for and who and what we will abandon and destroy. If we don't redefine how we relate to one another and the Earth, we will create newer, ever-more-negative versions of our current poly-crises." (Italics in the original.)

She starts with the concept that resilience is not only mind over matter or, the stereotypical "what doesn't kill you will make you stronger" comment. Chemaly opines that trauma, life's challenges, etc. not only affect one's mind and spirit, but also has a definite and, sometimes, lasting impact on the body. Recovering from stress, adversity, or loss requires more than tenacity. According to Chemaly, "[W]e adapt most effectively and healthily by appreciating the wonders of the mind and the body, because at least for now, there is no separating them.

Maybe the aches and pains everyone tries to muscle through when times are tough are just indicative of a person ignoring the whole-body concept required to be "resilient."

This is not the usual feel-good, self-help, follow these steps for a better, happier, more productive life sort of book. This one makes you think. It requires the reader to ruminate on the ideas advanced and decide whether the author is advocating for a particular path or merely raising possibilities. No one will agree with everything Chemaly writes but that makes the book all the more intriguing.

Here are two examples. The first involves religion and spirituality and how it helps or interferes with resilience. Chemaly writes, "spirituality and faith share three powerful resilience-building dimensions that are directly tied to embodiment: shared beliefs, resourceful communities, and valued rituals . . . rituals build bonding and belonging and an awareness of being cared for."

The author is a strong proponent in the necessity of having the proverbial village in place to help a person recover from trauma or overcome stressful situations. That would explain the emphasis or encouragement to rely on religion. What is not discussed, however, is how religion, in all its various forms, makes total acceptance of the sect's teachings, philosophies, hierarchy, etc. a prerequisite to being accepted into the community. Most religions do not encourage dissent (except Judaism). And, more often than not, dissenters or those who fall off the path of righteousness, are expelled, shunned, excommunicated, or otherwise dismissed from the community. It's more of a "it's my way, there is no highway" idea of community. And just how does that impact the author's view of religion or spirituality as important in the development of resilience? This reflects a shortcoming in the author's theory.

The other example is more egregious and deals with the former president, Donald Trump. The author, in addressing the "power of positivity," starts with Norman Vincent Peale's 1952 bestseller, The Power of Positive Thinking. Chemaly points out that Trump is one of Peale's "most influential acolytes." Somehow, that isn't a selling point.

She talks about Peale being Trump's mentor and friend and officiating at two of his weddings, which is odd for a man of Peale's religious fervor to acquiesce so willingly to divorce and adultery . . . but that's another book. According to Chemaly, Peale described Trump as someone with "a profound streak of honesty and humility." Really?

When talking about Trump's refusal to accept his loss in the 2020 election "is part and parcel of this commitment to thinking good thoughts always and to Peale, this spiritual mentor." So, is Chemaly saying Peale would support Trump's threats of violence against everyone? His childish stamping of his feet? Assigning anything resembling positive attributes to Donald Trump is concerning. This section of Chapter 4 raises questions that are not clarified and undermines the author's overall positions. But wait, there is more.

The chapter on "soldiering on" and Chemaly's comments on the militaristic language used when talking about resilience is interesting. There is a culture, particularly in the U.S., that idolizes military prose because it resonates with a masculine based position about power, strength, and adversity. The odd part is that this predilection for military style behavior exists when most people have never served.

However, the author points out that the number of current and former members of the armed services involved in the January 6, 2020, attack on the U.S. Capitol exceeded the percentage in the overall population. They make up a large percentage of those involved in extremist movements like the Oath Keepers. This does not bode well for anyone who is not white and male. And it hardly supports a more egalitarian society and, as Chemaly writes, "these movements are channels of white rage and palingenetic ultranationalism, not resilience in the sense of positive adaptation."

There are also differences in the way men and women are taught to be resilient. With men it's a "suck it up, cupcake" mantra, but women are taught differently. Chemaly writes, women "are taught that safety is our personal responsibility . . . girls learn to adapt, primarily by self-restricting our speech and curtailing our freedom of movement." It's something that is seen regularly whenever groups of women gather in support of their civil rights. Unlike children, women are never to be seen or heard and, if anything untoward happens, women are at fault and should have known better.

Chemaly must have known questions and concerns would be raised by her book because she addresses it in the final chapter. She acknowledges the pressure to provide "a happy, pat conclusion," which is more about conformity than creatively designing a new way forward. So she provides readers with a summary that provides an overview of her theories and arguments. This is not to encourage readers to skip the rest of the book. Even with segments that might raise the hackles or seem idealistic and unattainable, every page of this book is worth reading and discussing. Book groups could have great fun with this effort.

A final word from the author, "[I]t's a dilemma to be of the world even as you seek to change it . . ." But what else is there to do but try?