ABSTRACT
Resilience is often promoted as a unifying theory to integrate social and natural dimensions of
sustainability. But it is a troubled attempt of scientific unification fromwhich social scientistsmay feel
detached. To explain this, we first construct a typology of the many varied definitions of resilience.
Second, we analyse core concepts and principles in resilience theory – system ontology, system
boundary, equilibria and thresholds, feedback mechanisms, self-organisation, function – causing
incommensurability between the social and natural sciences. Third, we propose that the unification
ambition in resilience theory leads to scientific imperialism and undesirable political implications.
In contrast, and to avoid this, interdisciplinary research for sustainability would be better served
by methodological pluralism drawing also on core social scientific theories and concepts.
