Author: Rafał Sakowski
The resilience triad
Social resilience is the ability of a community (e.g., a municipality, school, office, hospital) to cope with difficult events so that essential matters keep functioning, and people can adapt and learn. It is not “being tough” but wisely adjusting and helping one another.
Research1 also shows that, in crises, social bonds and social capital are important.
In practice (especially after the pandemic experience), social resilience requires constant capacities: honest communication, listening to people (also offline), feedback mechanisms, and managing rumors and misinformation. This approach is strongly recommended in World Health Organization documents and in European public health preparedness guidelines. The report “Misinformation Through the Eyes of Poles 2024” shows that 91% of respondents encountered at least one false piece of information, and the report on misinformation in local Poland highlights the need to rebuild trust in knowledge, public institutions, and reliable sources (especially at the local level).
In this context, it is worth remembering the tradition of so‑called “active measures” — a set of techniques developed by the KGB during the Cold War: manipulation, infiltration, discrediting opponents, and controlling the narrative. Today, these techniques have gained new fuel: algorithms, social media, and digital infrastructure.
Operational definition in three dimensions
The starting point is a simple, “working” definition of resilience: the ability to cope with disruptions and respond in a way that maintains basic functions, while at the same time learning and changing when needed.
Trzy wymiary w praktyce
Trust (without trust, cooperation is difficult)
This is the belief that “others (people and institutions) will behave in a predictable and fair way” — that they will deliver what they promise, explain their decisions, and treat people equally. In public measurement, this is often broken down into concrete “building blocks,” such as reliability, responsiveness, honesty, openness, and fairness. In Poland, trust is described as one of the key values binding social life.
Cooperation (because without cooperation, real action is difficult)
This is the ability to act together: municipality–residents, school–parents, social services–NGOs, neighbors–neighbors. In a crisis, cooperation depends on whether communication channels exist, whether people have a place to report problems, and whether the institution can respond effectively.
Agency (without visible results, trust declines)
Agency is the feeling and real possibility of influence: “I can do something” (as an individual) and “we can do something” (as a group). Agency increases when results are visible and when the community has resources (time, people, support networks) and clear procedures. Reviews of studies on community resilience show that group activities and social support can strengthen resilience, but they require a good understanding of local conditions.
Resilience as relationship infrastructure
The most common mistake is the message “be resilient,” which in practice means: “deal with it yourselves.”
Resilience is sometimes used in a way that shifts responsibility from institutions to individuals and communities, which can then justify withdrawing public services (“since they managed without support, why invest?”). In health and social policy, there is also a risk of a “resilience culture”: creating a norm that if someone is struggling, they are “not resilient enough,” instead of asking about living conditions, support, and inequalities.
The second mistake is more “local”: building resilience on strong within‑group bonds but without bridges. Then strong networks operate that may exclude others (e.g., new residents, migrants, poorer people). There is a lack of “bridging” ties between groups — and this weakens dialogue and the flow of help.
Therefore, resilience planning should promote equity and inclusion: who has a voice, who is heard, who has access to information and support. Research on tools for resilience planning indicates that the process (who is in the room, how we listen to emotions and trauma, how we build relationships) is as important as the content of the plan.
Finally, the trend of “closing in” and prioritizing “my circle” at the expense of shared institutions increases the risk that resilience becomes private: “we will manage; the rest is not my concern.” This directly harms solidarity and cooperation.
The trap of resilience without solidarity
Social resilience is relationship infrastructure — just as important as roads and servers.
What does “relationship infrastructure” mean:
- constant communication channels (not only during crises),
- fast and reliable information sources + the ability to correct rumors,
- cooperation networks (municipality–NGO–schools–healthcare–voluntary fire service),
- a sense that “this makes sense” and that “our action changes something.”
WHO and European guidelines show that risk communication, community engagement, and infodemic management are treated as elements of preparedness and trust-building — and therefore as part of resilience.
Importantly, research on “social infrastructure” emphasizes that these are not just buildings. They are also practices, local networks, and co-governance routines — and that one must consciously balance “here and now” networks with bridges; otherwise, exclusions may occur.
Building resilience is not a one-time effort — just like building any other infrastructure. It is an ongoing adaptive process. It is a search for partnership relations, not a monologue (or rather a pseudo-dialogue) from a position of power, which unfortunately often occurs between local government and civil society.
