In the context of societal resilience, the catch-all term ‘psycho-social’ is used to refer to all the inner dimensions of human systems, and emphasises the inseparability of individual and collective factors. This is the domain of cognition, emotion, consciousness and culture; a complex interplay between individual subjective experience, unconscious processes, neurophysiology, interpersonal relationships, collective beliefs and social constructs. It is contrasted by the material ‘outer’ world of landscapes and objects, although neither realm is truly separate or distinct, and both exist in dynamic interdependence continuously influencing and informing one another (Bristow et al., 2024).
Whilst the term ‘psycho-social’ does show up in the academic literature on societal resilience, it is much more common to just find narrower concepts or categories included within models and frameworks (Qamar, 2023). By far the most common concept is ‘social capital’, whilst social identity theory and the importance of collective beliefs and social norms are also sometimes considered. Despite there being a rich parallel discourse on psychological resilience, the cognitive and emotional resources held by individuals, families and communities have only received scant attention in this context. Mental health is largely considered in terms of down-stream impacts, for instance minimising the distress caused by disasters, rather than as an upstream condition of collective resilience.
The fact that research, policy development and investment into societal resilience has so far been focussed on the ‘outer’ dimension reflects a wider cultural bias towards the material, technical and easily measurable. This bias has deep roots in the reductionist, materialist and rationalist worldview of the 18th Century Enlightenment, a worldview which is increasingly critiqued in contemporary philosophy for being too simplistic and blinkered for dealing with the complexity and interdependence of our times, which demands more holistic approaches.
In reality, all aspects of community/social/societal resilience have some psycho-social dimension, as where human systems are concerned, even physical components are always in a complex interplay with our culture, psychological tendencies and subjective experience. Academic fields vary greatly in the extent to which this interdependence of inner and outer conditions and capacities is acknowledged or foregrounded, however.
<aside> <img src="/icons/map_orange.svg" alt="/icons/map_orange.svg" width="40px" />
For a landscape review of the most crucial psycho-social elements for systems thinkers to consider, along with more historical context, see The System Within: addressing the inner dimensions of sustainability and systems transformation (Bristow et al, 2024).
</aside>
The English language struggles for a phrase that competently speaks to psychological qualities at collective levels. “Social infrastructure” is sometimes used, but that term is generally taken to mean the buildings or organisations within which social fabric is woven, rather than the fabric itself. The term “social capital” is most widespread but can be a misleading metaphor that reinforces market logic; Describing quantity rather than quality, it is framed as something a community has rather than the essence of what the community is. The German word Gemeinschaft perhaps comes closest, something like ‘fellow feeling’, it concerns the bonds, values and qualities of informal, community relations: The ‘inner infrastructure of society’, perhaps.
High-reliability organisations (HROs) such as aircraft carriers and nuclear power stations have long recognised that specific “cognitive infrastructure” is necessary to avoid catastrophe. Human qualities like alertness, sensitivity to novelty, flexibility and rapid learning are seen as vital for preventing system failures (Weick et al, 1999). The development of inner qualities from compassion to critical thinking are also increasingly seen as essential for the effectiveness of organisations across every sector, whilst fields like peace studies, gender equity and sustainability are recognising that inner transformation is necessary for deep and lasting outer transformation. The way in which citizens respond to difficulty will similarly be highly contingent on inner qualities and tendencies, in ways that will vary across time and from one area to the next. Evidence suggests that these qualities can be intentionally nurtured, or unintentionally depleted, at individual and collective levels, with profound significance.
Pi Ferrer, L., Selvam, R. M., & Cavallotti, R. (2025). Resilience through a multisystemic perspective: analyzing individual, family, and community systems. Current Psychology, 1-14.
Ungar, M., & Theron, L. (2020). Resilience and mental health: how multisystemic processes contribute to positive outcomes. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 7 (5), 441–448.
“Interestingly, individual resilience only strengthened the associations between neighborhood quality and positive psychological outcomes (i.e., at lower levels of personal resilience, the positive association between neighborhood characteristics and psychological wellbeing was still present, albeit somewhat reduced).”
“ Piloting with 2,565 adolescents and adults from a rural, disadvantaged community in southern Appalachia in the United States showed the value of enabling “poly-strengths” –a compendium of diverse and dense supports, including regulatory strengths, meaning-making strengths that reflect relevant faith and cultural processes, social support from immediate family, peers and adults, and community supports – for mental health and psychological wellbeing.56”
“Despite the accumulating evidence that multiple systems play a role in individual resilience, there remain epistemological problems with assessing resilience across systems, especially when we add cultural and contextual (horizontal) variability to within person and within community (vertical) differences in the factors that predict better coping under stress.”
“A reductionistic approach that simplifies the study of resilience to the study of just genes, cognitions, family functioning or even a single ecological factor like neighborhood cohesion will not be enough to explain human resilience.”
Academic studies highlight the importance of community cohesion and the quality of social bonds in disaster scenarios. Pre-disaster social support can decrease both exposure to natural disasters and the adverse psychological effects of natural disaster exposure (Mao et al, 2021). This is certainly true in acute crises, where the local community most often responds more quickly than emergency services and then if there’s sufficient cohesion rides a “honeymoon phase” of goodwill and mutual aid that can last months. However, there is commonly then a period of “disillusionment” that can generate severe mental health and psychosocial issues, particularly if experienced under conditions of reestablished isolation or continuing crisis. Sufficient social support during this post-disaster period is associated with fewer negative psychological symptoms, as well as lower levels of disorder like PTSD, major depressive disorder (MDD), prolonged grief disorder (PGD) and risky behaviours, such as excessive drinking and drug-taking.
With enough time a "recovery" period of coming to terms and working through grief then allows the community to bounce back to a semblance of pre-crisis levels, or in some cases higher levels of cohesion and community wellbeing. This can take many months or years, during which time repeated disasters (or perhaps more likely, relentless stressors resulting from the ‘cascading’ crises of climate breakdown) can cause the stagnation or regression of recovery. With each repeated shock, trauma compounding trauma, communities that haven’t regained their strength will likely respond less well to adversity, creating suffering, instability and opportunities for authoritarian capture.