Deficit vs. Resilience vs. Systems Perspectives
How we frame problems as individuals and as part of larger institutions matter and changes how we look at potential solutions. Countless scholars and thinkers have written or talked about this over the years, one example being the article Identifying and Disrupting Deficit Thinking by Lori Patton Davis and Samuel D. Museus:
Ever since I encountered the idea that there are basically 3 different perspectives or worldviews when looking at a problem, I have started reflecting on which worldview I default to in any situation, even the most mundane or seemingly personal. The 3 perspectives are 1) DEFICIT, 2) RESILIENCE, & 3) SYSTEMS. I made a short animated powerpoint to the right that summarizes them. Below is a breakdown of some of my thoughts on each one.
1) DEFICIT - The individual has a deficit and doesn't fit the expectations of society. In this perspective, the problem is the individual. They are seen as needing to be "fixed" or rehabilitated and if they don't meet the expectations set, they can be removed.
The most extreme example of this worldview in action can be violence like the death penalty, or on a larger scale, the systematic elimination of an entire group of people seen as deficits in the form of genocide.
Some examples of this worldview in situations that are more normalized are in sending people to jail, expelling students from school, and firing people from jobs. Can we solve difficult problems and conflicts without punishing or immediately getting rid of people?
2) RESILIENCE - The individual needs skills and support to endure unfortunate circumstances and achieve success. In this perspective, there might be some recognition of the problems being bigger than the individual, but it accepts those problems as part of the norm and the solution is based around the individual succeeding and meeting the standards of society.
You can see the resilience perspective whenever we talk about people who "made it" or in providing support and resources to individuals or limited groups of people, often with expectations for a payoff in investment. There's a sort of glorification of overcoming problems to celebrate individual exceptionalism. The problem is necessary for that exceptionalism.
Many organizations and non-profits have a resilience approach because they are operating in a system that assumes and accepts that the same problems will continue to exist.
The education system will focus some attention on "closing the achievement gap," while we structure the same system around an assumption of hierarchy in achievement and create educational tracks and increased pressure and competition aligned with that assumption to perpetuate it.
We know that there is enough food produced for everyone in the world, but the problem of food insecurity and hunger is relegated to being addressed by individuals and groups who organize donations.
A story about a student giving up her entire college savings and indefinitely deferring her plans to go to her dream school to pay for her mom's rent after injury and job loss is categorized by many news organizations under "Acts of Kindness" because this is seen as a story of resilience and glorified struggle rather than a tragedy.
How do we support each other and cultivate our skills to survive and navigate problems in the short term without losing sight of the bigger picture?
3) SYSTEMS - Problems are systemic and must be addressed to allow individuals and communities to thrive. Systems are complex and so we constantly seek ways to improve how we meet the needs of everyone in our communities. At the same time, we need to be accountable to each other and reflect on how we are cultivating our own skills, seeking support, and recognizing when we cross others' boundaries.
This is the most complex perspective to put into action since it requires nuanced and critical thinking about problems. It asks why things are the way they are and examines how different approaches may impact different people. It's messy because it isn't a set of static rules that decide who is "good" and "bad". We all have our own identities and experiences that influence how different problems and potential solutions impact us.
An example of taking a systems approach might be mass organizing for Florida Amendment 4 in 2018 to restore voting rights to folks who were formerly incarcerated. It's important to recognize that this is a piece of a much larger movement that challenges other restrictions on voting. How do we decide who gets to vote when it comes to age? Citizenship status? What challenges and other factors impact who has more or less access to voting?
How do we make sure we are not replacing existing structures with ones that are simply more convenient for ourselves as inviduals without considering other groups? How do we make sure that we are taking an intersectional approach and reflecting on our own biases when advocating for systemic change?