Disaster resilience: A question of ‘multiple faces’ and ‘multiple spaces’? Siambabala Bernard Manyena Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK article info Article history: Received 28 August 2013 Received in revised form 20 December 2013 Accepted 24 December 2013 Available online 15 January 2014 Keywords: Disaster Resilience Traditional institutions Chieftaincy Zimbabwe abstract There is a general recognition that resilience is not necessarily a new concept. Rather, it is an old concept passed on through generations. Yet, far too little attention has been given to examine the resilience of traditional institutions that could potentially increase our understanding of resilience to disasters. This paper argues that the traditional institution of chieftaincy in many parts of Africa could potentially offer lessons in the theory and practice of resilience to disasters. The discourses and narratives tend to present traditional chiefs in Africa as political appendages of both colonial and post-independence govern- ments. In contrast, the chieftaincy should be viewed as a resilient and adaptable institution which is able to maintain its structure in both ‘normal’ and repressive administrations largely in the interests of its communities. Using the case study material from Zimbabwe, this paper illustrates how the chieftaincy in Zimbabwe is continuously re-making, replenishing and adapting to the neo-liberal and post-Marxist agendas in order to remain relevant to the ever-changing socio-economic environment. The conclu- sion is that the chieftaincy is the ‘real’ example of a resilient institution from which disaster resilience can learn. & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Resilience is becoming an increasing part of disaster studies and related disciplines. This has become particu- larly prevalent after the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action in 2005, which sought to enhance resilience to disasters. As a result, several competing notions and definitions of resilience have flourished. The argument here is not simply that an increase in definitions or a more nuanced understanding of resilience is required, but rather that it is about learning from the temporal and spatial scales of the adaptive capacity, transformative processes, maintenance of structures and recovery of systems, insti- tutions, communities or individuals following a disaster. The continued existence of Africa’s institution of tradi- tional chieftaincy can potentially provide insights into the conceptualisation of resilience. Traditional institutions are often mentioned in disaster ‘resilience thinking’ [1] but are rarely examined to offer insights into such debates. The few studies that have been conducted on traditional institutions have had a narrow focus on traditional or indigenous knowledge systems in relation to broader disaster risk reduction and ecosystems resilience. The term indigenous knowledge is also used interchangeably with ‘local knowledge’, ‘traditional knowledge’, ‘indigenous technical knowledge’, ‘peasant knowledge’, ‘traditional environmental knowledge’ or ‘folk knowledge’ [2]. How- ever, these studies have presented traditional knowledge systems and institutions as instruments for building resi- lience to disasters. Much less attention has been paid to how traditional institutions have coped with and adapted to changing environments without collapsing, particularly with reference to challenges introduced by colonial and Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2212-4209/$ - see front matter & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.12.010 E-mail addresses: bernmanyena03@gmail.com, bernard.manyena@manchester.ac.uk International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8 (2014) 1–9