Resilience thinking and citizen empowerment. Resilience thinking is a matter of perspective. It goes beyond the definition of urban resilience as the ability to withstand shocks. It implies a capability to rethink what might be taken for granted, allowing for a holistic approach that encompasses the way we interact with our environment. For urban citizens, stepping back from everyday life and dealing with unexpected change is not an innate gift. However, understanding this capability is key. It will help build the link with scientists who master the concept of urban resilience and enable citizens to be efficiently empowered. But how can scientists fulfill their social responsibility in a transfer of knowledge from teacher to learner? Qualified and recognized experts have little or no training in this area. Although the sociological dimension of urban resilience advocates a better understanding of philosophical and sociological concepts, such as those developed by E. Levinas and P. Freire on alterity and dialogical pedagogy, it is unfortunate to see that few publications underline their critical role in the process of building citizen empowerment.
Do artists give a better understanding? The very first question that comes to mind is, of course, “What is art?” But the relevant question for urban resilience is not “What is art?” It is “What does art teach us?” The answer plays a dominant role because “art” allows us to think differently from more traditional ways of thinking. As such, it can be seen as a threat to institutions by breaking norms and creating counter-power. “Art” can be politically incorrect when necessary; it should not aim to “aestheticize” politics, but possibly to “politicize” aesthetics. The artistic approach, whatever its outcome, is fundamentally aimed at asking questions, thinking differently, constructing new narratives. From this perspective, the artistic approach and resilience thinking deal with the same issue: rethinking what needs to be rethought.
Art, a pedagogic tool. Pedagogy cannot be decreed; it deserves to be learned. In the specific case of urban resilience, teaching is cognitively challenging. It requires the ability to share the same wording, to connect with the sensibilities of urban citizens while contextualizing the teaching. A critical step in building this connection will be to learn and share a common language that enables understanding of the meaning of urban resilience and the philosophy behind the concept. This should be thoroughly prepared in advance by artists and scientists to ensure that the message is properly understood, but also to help the artists. Indeed, the artistic approach is often based on personal experiences, living conditions and emotions. Writing a poem on a white sheet of paper, painting on a blank canvas, or carving a block of marble is not necessarily intended to teach. The message is not always apparent at first glance. But nothing prevents from translating emotions into a learning process. Emotions can also help us think.
Both scientists and artists need to recognize their social responsibility and engage in a transfer of knowledge from teacher to learner and in an artistic approach consistent with the goal to be achieved. Some of them may find it difficult to leave their comfort zone. For scientists, the transfer of knowledge is also a transfer of power; scientists cannot expect to empower urban citizens and at the same time not be challenged if they cannot provide convincing arguments. For artists, going beyond a natural sensitivity that finds expression in a painting, a sculpture, or a poem is not easy and sometimes not feasible. To be used as a pedagogical tool, the approach needs to be described objectively. This might be considered “counter-artistic” by those who defend the idea that “art” is essentially subjective. But the opposition between objectivity and subjectivity is as counterproductive as the opposition between figuration and abstraction. While some artists may have difficulty explaining their approach to “art” objectively, it can be assumed that those who are willing to engage in a learning process will have no difficulty explaining why their approach is consistent with the issues raised by urban resilience.
Three guidelines for a pedagogical approach. Building the tripartite relationship between scientists, artists, and non-expert citizens should be thought of in narrative terms. Narratives are often used in teacher-learner processes. They help to better understand our environment and are useful for creating group dynamics. Theoretically, a narrative should be structured in such a way that its effectiveness can be quantified. Depending on the objective to be achieved (from “soft” awareness to “hard” teaching), the teacher can decide to structure the teaching process accordingly.
Guideline 1: understanding the paradigm of cognitive apprenticeship. Although pedagogy deserves to be learned, self-study is perfectly conceivable. Many publications are available online, and although most of them are dedicated to a typical “teacher-student” relationship, they are suitable for acquiring the basic knowledge needed to engage in a learning process that brings together scientists, artists, and non-expert citizens. To build their program, artists and scientists should consider the following recommendations:
1- Define urban resilience as simply as possible. 2- Identify the hazard(s) relevant to the urban community. 3- Brainstorm about the limits of the definition and what makes it incomplete or questionable.
Guideline 2: sharing a common language. Building a pedagogical tool based on “art” is challenging because it depends first on building a “common productive activity”, which in turn depends on the message conveyed by the artist. When an artist is influenced by his relationship with nature, he/she will generally have no problem translating his/her emotions into the appropriate wording. But when it comes to talking about the relationships, he/she has with our urban space, the artist will have to acquire a basic knowledge of the wording used by experts, admittedly incomplete, but necessary for a dialogical process.
Guideline 3: selecting the appropriate artistic approach. The use of art as a pedagogical tool aims to improve our common well-living and wellbeing. Therefore, the needs of urban citizens should be at the core of the process. If there is a need for a local community in the southern hemisphere, it is risky to ask for the contribution of a northern hemisphere artist with a global approach, as it is potentially off-topic. Priority should be given to local artists with a message that might be meaningful to local citizens.
