The term ‘entry’ expresses “movement from one place to another” [38]: therefore there is a ‘transition’ that must be taken into account. The concept is also
linked to the question of “the place through which we enter” [38], and thus the
direction of the transition. Time also plays a part, as the ‘entry into’ begins with the
exercise of “a practice” [38] that implies a “change of state” [39].
The change of state is explained by unforeseen sequences of complex interactions that could not be predicted [15]. Entry into resilience must therefore be
perceived as an ‘exploratory zone’ in which it is necessary to have a better
understanding of the interactions in order to improve how they are managed. From
this point of view, a learning phase is necessary. It is difficult to rationalize this
exploration phase either upstream or during the process as it resembles “cognitive
DIY that does not belong to the scientific world (which does not mean that it cannot
be effective)” [40]. In this case, rationality could be described as procedural, with
“simple but strict rules, which certainly does not completely eliminate risk, but
reduces it to a level below that resulting from substantive rationality” [41].
Entry into resilience therefore translates into the creation of a new system [33]
when ecological, economic or social conditions make the initial system untenable.
In this case, the variables and scope that define the system must be modified.
Nevertheless, the potential for the loss of a certain degree of resilience is inevitable,
in the context of the dynamic interactions found in adaptive complex systems. Such
multiple interactions were thrown into sharp relief during the Fukushima Daiichi
crisis [8] and complicated the implementation of appropriate responses.
It is important to note that older definitions include an element of ‘privilege’,
linked to the capacity to ‘enter into’. The chambers of the king of France could only
be visited at specific times [42]. By extension it could be argued that this ‘entry
into’ also embodies a situation where the parties involved must demonstrate in
advance their capacity to access the privilege: in other words, education, training,
experience, professionalism, etc. The curriculum vitae of Masao Yoshida [12] is
illuminating in this sense as it demonstrates his competence and expertise, making
him the right person in the right place.
Finally, the notion of ‘entry into’ finds support from the biological metaphor of
the membrane, “a generic organ that links the interior with the exterior, the past and
the future, using the dual mode of qualification/interpretation of the future through
the past, and the integration of the future using the encoding of the past” [43]. This
metaphor enables the introduction of the relationship between time and space.
Prigogine [44] places the question of time “at the crossroads of problems of
existence and knowledge”. In this sense, his argument is similar to that of
Heidegger [45] for whom the question “of the meaning of being” cannot be
examined without an interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding. If it is accepted that resilience is a process, and that the entry into resilience is a moment (an instant or a short duration…), then it cannot be argued any
other way than that time is one of the determinants that shapes its nature. If it is
accepted that time is “at the crossroads”, the question of space necessarily arises.
Time and space are therefore the most important, fundamental and essential
determinants to be examined.
6
F. Guarnieri
linked to the question of “the place through which we enter” [38], and thus the
direction of the transition. Time also plays a part, as the ‘entry into’ begins with the
exercise of “a practice” [38] that implies a “change of state” [39].
The change of state is explained by unforeseen sequences of complex interactions that could not be predicted [15]. Entry into resilience must therefore be
perceived as an ‘exploratory zone’ in which it is necessary to have a better
understanding of the interactions in order to improve how they are managed. From
this point of view, a learning phase is necessary. It is difficult to rationalize this
exploration phase either upstream or during the process as it resembles “cognitive
DIY that does not belong to the scientific world (which does not mean that it cannot
be effective)” [40]. In this case, rationality could be described as procedural, with
“simple but strict rules, which certainly does not completely eliminate risk, but
reduces it to a level below that resulting from substantive rationality” [41].
Entry into resilience therefore translates into the creation of a new system [33]
when ecological, economic or social conditions make the initial system untenable.
In this case, the variables and scope that define the system must be modified.
Nevertheless, the potential for the loss of a certain degree of resilience is inevitable,
in the context of the dynamic interactions found in adaptive complex systems. Such
multiple interactions were thrown into sharp relief during the Fukushima Daiichi
crisis [8] and complicated the implementation of appropriate responses.
It is important to note that older definitions include an element of ‘privilege’,
linked to the capacity to ‘enter into’. The chambers of the king of France could only
be visited at specific times [42]. By extension it could be argued that this ‘entry
into’ also embodies a situation where the parties involved must demonstrate in
advance their capacity to access the privilege: in other words, education, training,
experience, professionalism, etc. The curriculum vitae of Masao Yoshida [12] is
illuminating in this sense as it demonstrates his competence and expertise, making
him the right person in the right place.
Finally, the notion of ‘entry into’ finds support from the biological metaphor of
the membrane, “a generic organ that links the interior with the exterior, the past and
the future, using the dual mode of qualification/interpretation of the future through
the past, and the integration of the future using the encoding of the past” [43]. This
metaphor enables the introduction of the relationship between time and space.
Prigogine [44] places the question of time “at the crossroads of problems of
existence and knowledge”. In this sense, his argument is similar to that of
Heidegger [45] for whom the question “of the meaning of being” cannot be
examined without an interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding. If it is accepted that resilience is a process, and that the entry into resilience is a moment (an instant or a short duration…), then it cannot be argued any
other way than that time is one of the determinants that shapes its nature. If it is
accepted that time is “at the crossroads”, the question of space necessarily arises.
Time and space are therefore the most important, fundamental and essential
determinants to be examined.
6
F. Guarnieri