Defining resilience

Generally, human beings go through many and diverse challenges in life. However, most individuals manage to overcome these challenges, and that process is referred to as resilience (Masten, 2001; Boyden & Mann, 2005; Ungar, 2008). There appears to be many definitions of resilience in literature. For example, earlier studies conceptualised resilience to mean that one‟s ability to overcome challenges depended on one‟s inner individual capacities (Anthony & Cohler, 1987; Rutter, 1987). Although there has been criticism of these studies (Luthar et al., 2000; Ungar, 2010), there is evidence in literature that individual efforts could enable individuals to adjust positively despite the difficulties they are facing (Masten, 2001; Van Rensburg and Barnard, 2005; Theron & Malindi, 2010).

The critique on the individuals‟ ability to overcome adversity highlights the role that is played by those individuals‟ ecologies in the process of resilience (Braverman, 2001; Masten & Powell, 2003; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Ungar, 2008; Henley, 2010). For example, literature reports that a child who grows up in a violent community may develop well in spite of exposure to the difficulties associated with that context, provided that child has a parent who supports him with his school work or encourages him to succeed (Dass-Brailsford, 2005; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Ungar (2010) has also argued that in the process of resilience, the influence of the family, the state and the resources they provide in enabling individual resilient patterns cannot be ignored.

Resilience is also defined based on the judgments that researchers make about individual‟s behaviour when faced with adversity. Masten and Powell (2003) studied young people from Cambodia who survived the trauma of war. Their judgment of their resilient patterns was based on how they lived their lives (making friends, academic competence) compared to other young people of the same age who did not experience such adversity. I agree with these counter arguments because I believe that the journey of life cannot be defined from one perspective but a multiplicity of experiences that define how one has overcome his challenges in life. These experiences can therefore draw from both the individual capacities and the resources that are at one‟s disposal.

The complexity in the resilience framework is evident in the critique around resilience research. For instance, Luthar et al. (2000) have criticised this research on a number of issues highlighting that firstly, resilience research has many definitions as was evident in the earlier discussion. Secondly, resilience as a concept and a construct is associated with different terms such as coping, adaptation or well-being. Thirdly, when the construct of resilience is

operationalised in studies, there is usually no consistency. Finally, there are theoretical concerns around the notion of resilience. Earlier concerns about practical issues in the conceptualisation of resilience were raised by Braverman (2001, p.3). For instance, according to him “it is competence or adaptation rather than resilience that is the characteristic which can be identified in the child”. His view highlights the overlapping of terms in studies on resilience. However, Masten and Obradovic (2006, p.22) caution researchers about the limited time frame of resilience definitions since there are “many pathways to resilience”.

However, there are common issues on which resilience researchers seem to agree. For example, they tend to share the perspective that humans have strengths, despite the adversity to which they are exposed in life (Werner & Smith, 1982; Luthar et al., 2000; Masten, 2001; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Mancini & Bonanno, 2009; Ungar, 2010). They all agree that there should be the presence of significant adversity and the manifestation of positive adjustment outcomes for one to be resilient (Werner & Smith, 1982; Luthar, et al., 2000; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Ungar, 2010). Recently, there seems to be agreement that resilience occurs within a particular culture and cannot be generalised across cultures (Ungar, 2008; Theron & Theron, 2010). Literature also reports that despite the criticism of this research, there have been consistent findings regarding the factors that contribute to the positive development of children and youth (Masten & Obradovic, 2006; Ungar, 2008).

The definition of resilience to which many studies refer to is that resilience is “a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity” (Luthar, et al., 2000, p.543). Luthar et al., (2000) further explain this definition by stating that a resilient outcome will manifest only if one faces significant adversity and is able to show positive development despite that adversity. However, they also warn researchers to be aware that

“positive adaptation is theoretically operationalized differently” (Luthar et al., 2000, p.544). Quite recently, Ungar (2010, p.425) has defined resilience as “both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to health sustaining resources, including opportunities to experience feelings of well-being, and a condition of the individual‟s family, community and culture to provide these health resources and experiences in culturally meaningful ways”. He explains his definition to mean that when meaningful resources in a given environment are available and can be accessed, positive development can be facilitated. He frames this definition as a “social ecological interpretation of resilience” (Ungar, 2010, p.422). These different definitions exemplify that resilience is indeed a complex concept, as researchers define it in the context of their own studies (Braverman, 2001). Clearly, when conducting research using resilience theory as a framework, one needs to be aware of these variations.

I clarify the definitions of the resilience framework, because in my study I used the concept of resilience. It is evident from the literature that resilience manifests in the presence of risk and the processes that enable individuals to overcome such risks (Luthar et al., 2000). In this study, the participants were children who have been orphaned and rendered vulnerable by HIV and AIDS. The difficulties such children are reported to be exposed to were mentioned in Section 1.1. However, literature warns against assumptions that people who are facing a similar adversity will respond the same (Luthar et al., 2000). Hence in this study I did not view the participants as victims but as children who could adapt positively despite their circumstances.

I also viewed the communities where participants reside from an asset based perspective (Ebersöhn, & Eloff, 2006) by recognising the strengths, capacities and resources that exist in these communities. One such resource were the folktales, hence in this study I explored how folktales can enhance the resilience of children orphaned and rendered vulnerable by HIV and

AIDS and how they can be used by teachers to reach both pastoral and academic goals. Framing this study from a social ecological understanding of resilience (Ungar, 2011), implies that I recognised that the availability and accessibility of folktales to children can contribute to their positive development. Infact, the social ecological perspective of resilience acknowledges that positive adjustment is a process that manifests as a result of collaboration between the children and their social ecologies (Ungar, 2011). The notion of collaboration therefore supports Vygostky‟s view of social constructivism (cited in Donald et al., 2010, p.55) that knowledge is co-constructed and learning is a social action, hence in this study participants engaged with the folktales and articulated their views on how they made them feel. I proceeded in this study from the understanding that resilience is not a fixed characteristic of the individual that cannot be developed and enhanced (Luthar et al., 2000).

Given that literature on bibliotherapy (Iaquinta & Hipsky, 2006; Du Toit, 2010; Morgan & Roberts, 2010) has alluded to the resilience potential of stories, in general, I aimed to find out how folktales could enhance the resilience of the participants in this study and be used by teachers to reach their pastoral and academic goals.