Our culture often paints resilience as individual strength or toughness, a matter of will or character. From an Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB) lens, resilience depends on the interplay between our biology, environment, and the relational systems in which we’re embedded. Framing it as something we can cultivate places undue pressure on individuals to adapt to adversity, while obscuring the structural and relational factors that determine outcomes.
The impact of trauma is shaped by far more than mindset or personal effort. Epigenetics, the presence of safe and attuned relationships, and socioeconomic factors like access to resources are central. The nervous system’s response to trauma is automatic, rooted in survival. No one chooses how their body reacts or what long-term effects might emerge from conditions beyond their control.
When resilience is viewed as self-reliance, it shifts focus away from the real problem: systems and structures that perpetuate harm. We don’t tell someone to “build grit” to survive cancer or recover from a car accident; we focus on preventing harm and supporting healing. Trauma requires the same collective response — a network of care and accountability — not an expectation of individual toughness.
Those who seem to embody resilience have often had access to supportive relationships or other protective factors. They may also be masking the effects of trauma, performing “normalcy” at a great personal cost. What looks like resilience to the outside world might be survival at the expense of their well-being.
Instead of focusing on resilience as an individual trait, we need to create environments that foster safety, connection, and care. Trauma recovery isn’t a solitary journey, but a relational one. It’s time we stop asking people to adapt to adversity and start building systems that prevent harm and truly support healing.
