4 May 2020

NOTE: The following excerpts come from a 3 May 2020 column published by Common Dreams. To read the full article, click here.

COVID-19 has set the U.S. economy on fire. More than 30.3 million unemployment insurance claims were made over the last six weeks – the equivalent of roughly 19% of the nation’s civilian workforce. By some estimates, 12.7 million workers may have already lost their employer-provided health insurance, not counting any dependents who were covered under those plans. And, while the pandemic is affecting everyone, everywhere, persons, communities, and businesses of color are bearing disproportionate shares of the burdens.

Given the magnitude of devastation experienced thus far, it is not surprising to see calls for the suffering to end. Americans want to put out the fire. And top officials at all levels of government are quick to respond with promises that life will go “back to normal” in short order. The economy, they say, will “really bounce back” in a matter of months.

But, is an unqualified “return to normal” a good thing? Do we really want to just “bounce back?” After all, before the coronavirus hit, the U.S. was already experiencing some of the highest levels of inequality and largest racial wealth gaps in recent memory – disparities that are on track to be exacerbated by COVID-19. At the same time, more than one-fifth of American children already lived in poverty. Experts suggest that food security has become an even greater issue for these children as a result of the pandemic. Are these the “normal” circumstances to which society should seek an immediate return?

One reason we often aspire to “bounce back” from crises to where we were before is that moving in a different direction would necessitate more short-term sacrifice. In other words, it is neither quick nor cheap – nor always popular – to wage war on the “institutional rigidity” of the status quo. Another reason is that many leaders and experts genuinely believe that bouncing back to normal is what it means to be resilient; and, as such, “normal” is what we ought to aim for once the fire is extinguished.

Crucially, though, a social system is not resilient because it returns to the way it was before a disaster, pandemic, or terrorist attack. A system like that – one characterized by constancy, persistence, and the ability to go back to the way things were – is a stable system. By contrast, a resilient system is one that, when faced with a crisis, adapts and self-organizes to become better prepared to function in the post-crisis world. Put differently, true resilience involves pushing forward – building new capacity in the present to flourish in the future – not just bouncing back.

If, following the Great Fire of 1666, London had simply rebuilt the same “clogged”, “narrow” combustible urban fabric that it had before, the city could have been in flames again by the time the ashes were scattered. Instead, the 1667 Act for Rebuilding London established institutions to prevent future fires from being able to wreak the same level of havoc on the city. The Act limited “private freedom to a degree necessary to prevent” future disasters. As we work to put out the fires that COVID-19 ignited on our economy, we need to take the same approach. Resilience does not mean simply bouncing back – it is about boldly advancing into the post-crisis world with fewer vulnerabilities than we had before. Reducing systemic inequities and building the capacities of vulnerable workers, populations, and places is how we become a more resilient society going forward.

Click here to read the rest of this column.