Yunes: Resilience in Poor Families E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Resilience in Poor Families. 3(1): 26-33 (2007) 26 The Ideological Trap Of The Advocacy's Discourse On Resilience In Poor Families Maria Angela Mattar Yunes (yunes@vetorial.net) Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande Rua Vasco da Gama,51/apto. 801 90420-111 – Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Abstract Family resilience has emerged as an important construct in Positive Psychology. The present qualitative study aimed to investigate family resilience in poverty from the perspective of the advocacy's discourse. Fourteen professionals, seven educators and seven health service workers, were interviewed individually about their experience with "families who succeed despite poverty". The professionals believe that the majority of poor families are not able to overcome poverty. Although they recognize some elements of resilience such as the relational and organizational style of some families, most professionals emphasized that “resilient families” should function according to dominant social norms in order to succeed. It seems that these educational and health social agents have incorporated the ideological facet provoked by the construct of resilience which suggests that poor families are "non-resilient a priori". Keywords: resilience; family resilience; poor families; Brazilian families. Introduction The word resilience takes part in everyday life of people who live in Europe, United States or Canada. In these countries, the term is frequently mentioned in different sorts of situations that range from TV/ magazine advertisements to social and educational political programs. However in Brazil its use has been restricted to a limited number of people from particular fields of work such as ecologists, dentists and engineers. Resilience was previously represented by the terms invincibility and invulnerability that are still being used to some extent in the general literature that describes the phenomenon of resilience (Martineau, 1999). Important researchers (Rutter, 1987, 1993; Masten & Garmezy, 1985; Walsh, 1998, 2003) have given an enormous contribution to the discussion by pointing out that some terms such as invulnerable or invincible are improper to human beings because they suggest immunity to any type of disorder. Despite these considerations, the meaning of the word resilience as invulnerability is still “in the air”. This fact is possibly contributing to define the construct of resilience as a certain number of individual traits and conditions (Masten & Garmezy, 1985; Rutter, 1987, 1999; Werner, 1986, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992) that can be reified, as stated by Martineau (1999) in her critical analysis of the “expert” or dominant discourse on the subject. Martineau also affirms that most studies on resilience are designed on a quantitative basis with a focus on the child, who is identified as resilient or not, according to psychometric tests, school grades, personality and temperament profiles which will describe some observable characteristics. Those traits will eventually define “the resilient child”. Although the literature about “child resilience” or “the resilient child” is considerably vast (Grotberg, 1995; Rutter, 1987, 1993, 1999; Werner, 1986, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1989, 1992; Zimmerman & Arunkumar, 1994), "resilience in families is a relatively new construct" (Hawley & DeHann, 1996, p. 283). Most studies tend to emphasize and explore the negative points and deficits of familial life (Walsh, 1996, 1998, 2003) rather than the positive aspects. Family resilience brings along a “salutogenic view” (Antonovsky & Sourani, 1988), which means to focus on the healthy aspects and potential that all families have to succeed instead of remarking their failures and dysfunctions. There are indications that it was by the end of 1980 that family researchers started publishing their ideas on the issue (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988). A few years ago, Walsh (1996) and Hawley and DeHann (1996) have highly contributed to clarify the concept of family resilience by starting a movement towards a relational, systemic, ecological and developmental view of resilience. The ecological perspective takes into account the many spheres of influence in risk and resilience across the life span (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The family, peer group, school or work settings and larger social systems can be seen as nested contexts for social competence (Walsh, 1998, 2003). When we refer to family resilience we are not talking about an individual characteristic that influences the family. Family resilience must be investigated on the lenses of key-processes that will form the basis for the healthy family functioning (Walsh, 1996, 1998). Froma Walsh (1998) has organized her knowledge in this area by developing a conceptual framework that remarks three particular domains of family resilience: the family belief systems; the organizational patterns