Emplotting anticipatory resilience: An antenarrative extension of the communication theory of resilience

ABSTRACT

This work extended the communication theory of resilience by examining how individuals construct anticipatory resilience through narratives of disruptive life events. Guided by postmodern antenarrative theory, we analyzed the emplotment of 25 individuals’ narratives of disruptive events to understand how participants make sense of these events and prospectively craft resilience as storied logics of the future. The findings challenged extant resilience theorizing by centering narrative incoherence and conceiving of anticipatory resilience as a communicated logic of the future rather than as discursive-material resource. The analysis also suggested theoretical implications for this reframed understanding of anticipatory resilience and narrative incoherence as a site for critical investigation of resilience processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Anticipatory resilience
• communication theory of resilience
• antenarrative

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Chekhov’s gun is a principle in literature and drama that suggests story elements should only be included if they matter in the context of the overarching narrative. It is attributed to the Anton Chekhov who stated: “One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn’t going to go off. It’s wrong to make promises you don’t mean to keep” (Goldberg, 1976, p. 163).

2 Students were offered an alternative assignment to this course project.

3 Although the 18-minute interview was short, it was retained because it adhered to the interview protocol and offered relevant insight regarding the interviewee’s experience. Moreover, using length as a barometer for data quality can reinforce classed and raced communication norms that disenfranchise and displace minoritized voices in research (Gist-Mackey & Kingsford, 2020).

4 Regarding data verification procedures, the question of theoretical saturation, and the validity or trustworthiness of these interpretations, we checked transcripts against audio recordings of the interviews. While we did not conduct any additional verification procedures, the authors collaborated closely on the analysis and interpretation of data throughout the writing and revision process. Given the aims of this project (i.e., to examine fragmentation and incoherence in the storytelling process rather than the verification of events), we believe that most verification methods, while appropriate for a variety of works, would not necessarily lend greater credibility to this work: first, because qualitative verification procedures are not in keeping with the postmodern skepticism we employ in this piece; second, because these procedures (e.g., member checks) could obfuscate meaningful findings by emphasizing agreement amongst evaluators and participants rather than investigating and analyzing through interpretation. Further, in terms of saturation, the diversity of narratives provided meaningful insight into the storytelling processes under examination, lending clear warrant to the arguments and interpretations represented herein.