‘Resilience’ is the defining element of the Resilience Councils. The simplest definition of resilience is “the ability to cope with shocks and to keep functioning in much the same kind of way. It is a measure of how much an ecosystem, a business, a society can change before it crosses a tipping point into some other kind of state that it then tends to stay in”. (Walker, 2020) Unfortunately, resilience seems to become a buzzword. It therefore is crucial to frame the concept of resilience in the SAUFEX project.
SAUFEX
In the SAUFEX project, resilience is taken as a systemic quality. It is both seen as the amount of elasticity a system possesses and as a mechanism to keep the system from overstretching and reaching its tipping point. Resilience is both about trying to prevent the system from reaching a tipping point while at the same time making the system as such more shock-proof.
In this document, resilience refers mostly to defending the system: anticipating, preventing, detecting, and evaluating FIMI incidents and campaigns, combating and removing its effects, and restoring the system. In this epilogue, the authors also formulate a first draft of how to conceptualise the second aspect of resilience, to be further elaborated during the course of the project. But first, it needs to be clear what ‘the system’ is that is defending itself against FIMI by utilising Resilience Councils.
Infosphere
It might seem obvious to take the information ecosystem (‘infosphere’) as the system that is counteracting against FIMI to avoid being pushed over the tipping point. This would nicely align with the focus on the DSA in the SAUFEX project, although the DSA mainly focuses on the online sphere of (very large) platforms and search systems. Beyond the main objects of the DSA, the information system consists of other online information systems such as hosting services, and of traditional media, offline and online, private information exchanges, and governmental information services.
Although taking the infosphere as the system seems a logical starting-point, it is doubtful whether trying to keep the infosphere functioning should be a goal in itself. Maybe, a well-functioning infosphere is a precondition for another, larger system to not be shoved over the cliff?
The state
The European Commission states: “Disinformation erodes trust in institutions and in digital and traditional media, and harms our democracies by hampering the ability of citizens to take informed decisions.” (European Commission, 2018b) This implies that besides the sphere of media, digital and traditional, ‘institutions’ and ‘our democracy’ could be harmed. Elsewhere, it specifies the potential victims of that harm as follows: “democratic processes as well as /.../ public goods such as Union citizens' health, environment or security” (European Commission, 2018a). The system now seems to encompass media, institutions, democratic processes, and public goods. The frame to protect all these separate elements from the perspective of the European Commission seems to be the democratic European state.
Society
If the state is indeed to be the systemic frame for resiliency, a temptation might occur for the state to rate its own survival above all other goals. It could start prioritising the defence of its institutions and processes as the highest goal and forget what its ultimate task is: serving its citizens with the service of democratic governance. This is the trap of ‘undemocratic liberalism’ as described by Yasha Mounk (2018).
The democratic state rather seems an element in the ‘keep functioning part’ of the definition of resilience. Instead, society is the system. That is why Resilience Councils are first and foremost representatives of civil society.
Tipping point
When taking inspiration from the field of prophylactics, and especially from the work of Bruce Alexander, it can be stated that people need a few preconditions to minimally function, a state Alexander (2008) calls ‘getting by’. The tipping point for not being able to get by anymore is, according to him, a state of dislocation: “[a]n enduring lack of psychosocial integration”. Psychosocial integration, in turn, “reconciles people’s vital needs for social belonging with their equally vital needs for individual autonomy and achievement. Psychosocial integration is as much an inward experience of identity and meaning as a set of outward relationships.” (Alexander, 2008) Alexander states that an experience of dislocation is “excruciatingly painful”, to such an extent that it becomes logical for those experiencing it to choose an alternative lifestyle.
Many social psychologists, such as Van der Kolk (2014) add a fourth basic human need to the three mentioned by Alexander: safety. The tipping point for people to keep functioning in society therefore is when their four basic needs - belonging, autonomy, achievement, and safety – are unattainable. When the four basic needs are out of reach for a prolonged time, individuals will turn away from our democratic society and choose an alternative path. In that situation, they will “become susceptible to the lure of pills, gang leaders, extremist religions, or violent political movements – anybody and anything that promises relief” (Van der Kolk, 2014).
Resilience in the SAUFEX project
Taking all the elements mentioned above together, resilience in the SAUFEX project implies to focus both on defending society against FIMI incidents and campaigns that try to undermine people’s experiences of belonging, autonomy, achievement, and safety and on actively supporting people’s positive experiences of belonging, autonomy, achievement, and safety.
The experience of belonging can be undermined by increasing polarisation and alienation. The experience of autonomy can be undermined by empowering an experience of learned helplessness, a state in which we unjustly feel we have no agency. The experience of achievement can be undermined by promoting relativism and nihilism. The experience of safety can be undermined by highlighting real or imagined threats to our physical and psychological health without providing solutions.
Resilience Councils in the SAUFEX project are therefore to be vigilant against foreign activities that aim to promote polarisation, alienation, learned helplessness, relativism, and nihilism, and that stress threats to our physical and psychological health while at the same time supporting citizens’ psychosocial integration in order to avoid the tipping point of large segments of citizens turning their backs to democracy and choosing non-democratic alternatives, thereby triggering society to follow suit.
Literature
· Alexander, B. (2008). The globalization of addiction. A study in poverty of the spirit. Oxford University Press.
· European Commission (2018a) Action Plan against Disinformation. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/action_plan_against_disinformation.pdf
· European Commission (2018b) Tackling online disinformation: a European Approach. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0236
· Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. Democracy. Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press
· Van der Kolk, B. (2014) The body keeps the score. Mind, brain and body in the transformation of trauma. Viking Press.
· Walker, B. (2020) Resilience: what it is and is not. In: Ecology and Society 25(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11647-250211
