I have been mulling over my NAMI article “Children Should Not Have to Be Resilient” I wrote last February. It was one of my most successful articles, being shared on social media over 1,000 times. 

I’ve heard friends call their kids resilient lately. I’ve called myself resilient lately. I appreciate my practices in dialectics in moments like this because while I hold strong ideas at times, I can see and validate all sides; this is a gift I have.

A distinction I made in this writing that still rings true to me: “I feel more resolved and can continue fighting when I am recognized for my hard work in coping with life’s pain, rather than solely being recognized for my (seemingly innate) resilience: “It is more fitting for someone to recognize how I effectively coped with the after-effects of trauma rather than being called brave and resilient for surviving it; the language and implications matter significantly. Support that serves me better as an adult now is when my supports recognize my strengths and triumphs that I actively work hard on addressing every day – like when I have a “recovery win,” such as being able to sit with my discomfort and find clarity before reacting to an upsetting situation. I am strong in how I choose to heal, manage and grow. I grow leaps and bounds when my supports recognize the hard work I put in today”. 

The question I come to now is this: if resilience is innate and something we all possess, why should I feel glad to be given this compliment when I’m not receiving the right support? It’s as if being patted on the back while my needs are not being met; it’s lacking substance. Many children have this experience where they need concrete support and not just an empty promise. 

There is a clear distinction I am carving out here that resilience by choice is an admirable quality to practice and possess while resilience by chance is not something we should draw attention to. By choice is something within our control, while the latter is by means of force and completely lacking direction or control.

What I mean by lacking direction or control is that trauma survivors are expected to rise to the top after being in harm’s way; there is little room for grace and forgiveness here. We are expected to “bounce back” and we are oftentimes not provided the right support and time to do so. We need time to clean our wounds and find our footing again. This in-between rehabilitation is not always pretty. People are often pushing for the comeback without allowing the full scope of rest and retry. 

Resilience by choice means providing adequate support to the survivor and making way for them to become a thriver. Without support, resilience is a hollow promise — a compliment that thickens the air of defeat. Resilience by choice is the definition of empowerment. There is a clear vision of putting in the hard work to overcome; this is the ideal. 

Resilience by chance lacks consent as a desperate stronghold between rising above out of spite or simply staying down and giving up. My resilience by chance as a teenager into young adulthood was initially out of spite and pure survival. I didn’t have a choice but to survive and it was quite an ugly, unforgiving process. I was angry at the world. Being called resilient was the cherry on top to a scorning sundae. If I was provided all the proper support, perhaps I would have risen above to do better by choice sooner. 

My resilience by choice came much later in life, at 24 years old, where I finally received the proper diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Equipped with the right support all around, I rose above my past hindrances and overcame by route of resilience by choice. 

It is true that we do bounce back — notably as children. Relying solely on resilience by chance is a dangerous notion though. In one of my undergrad classes, we read about how people who win the lottery who were happy in their lives before the win have a rush of exuberance once they win, and then they return to their baseline of joy. Similarly, those who win the lottery who were unhappy before, experience that rush of joy, too, and then return to their lowly baseline. I think this can be seen similarly with the concept of resilience. Without that baseline of joy (or support and safety), things go back to where they were before; it’s just a bandaid. It’s not a true win if the survivor is still suffering. Perception is not always reality. 

If something is hollow, we will feel its presence and detract from continuing to put in the hard work because it is not the truth; it feels contrived. If we choose resilience naturally along with being equipped with the right support, we are capable of overcoming with our supports — hand-in-hand. Resilience by choice can be done individually, but together as a team for trauma survivors, it can feel most affirming. Instead of complimenting resilience by chance, we must dedicate ourselves to offering the right support to a survivor. 

Being complimented is nice, but to me, it’s nothing without the follow-through of unconditional support. Showing a commitment behind the words — a notable action of support — feels validating. And so when we are told we did good or that we “bounced back quickly,” it can feel invalidating when we notice the support we deserve is lacking. I realize that much of the time growing up, I received some validation, but I was not always supported the way I needed it. It was the follow-through they lacked. Today, the people in my life follow-through with both their words and actions so I don’t feel abandoned. This is where I’m coming from — not that it’s “wrong” to recognize resilience, but that is can feel insufficient to someone who is working so very hard to be well or just stay alive where support and safety are of the essence.