Full details here

What is the sig­ni­fic­ance of ‘post’ in post-​disaster, post-​conflict and post-​crisis, and how might we ana­lyze the sim­il­ar­ities in the gov­ern­mental re­sponses to eco­nomic, in­fra­struc­tural and so­ci­etal dis­rup­tion? We con­tend that, des­pite dis­cip­linary bound­aries which sep­arate the study of war, eco­nomy and dis­aster, im­portant in­sights can be gained through an in­ter­dis­cip­linary ex­plor­a­tion of the way that events are bounded by con­cep­tions of tem­por­ality and re­spons­ib­ility. Events are con­sti­tuted through both an­ti­cip­a­tion and re­mem­brance. The bound­aries of ‘be­fore’ and ‘after’ help to for­mu­late events as ‘mo­ments’ of dis­rup­tion which punc­tuate equi­lib­rium and ne­ces­sitate cor­rective gov­ernance. This is often un­der­taken with scant re­gard for the struc­tures that amp­lify and gen­erate their im­pact, or their on­going ef­fects. Slow-​burning crises are par­tic­u­larly sus­cept­ible to being-​made-​silent within this frame.

The re­si­li­ence dis­course, which has tra­versed studies and policies of eco­nomy, con­flict pre­ven­tion and dis­aster man­age­ment, is paradig­matic with re­gard to con­tem­porary event-​thinking. Resilience…