ABSTRACT
It can be argued that discourses on the sustainability of human-environmental relations that
ignore their political dimension are not only incomplete, but in themselves-as ideologies-
manifestations of power. In this chapter, I begin by arguing that the currently burgeoning dis-
cussions on ‘‘social-ecological resilience’’ (Berkes and Folke 1998; Levin et al. 1998; Peterson
2000; Gunderson and Holling 2002; Berkes et al. 2003; Folke 2006) tend to mask the power
relations, contradictions of interest, and inequalities that to a large extent determine how
humans utilize the surface of the Earth. On the other hand, I hope to demonstrate the
underexplored potential of resilience theory to radically confront such power structures by
identifying some of the basic assumptions of economics as the very source of vulnerability,
mismanagement, and crises. The most basic assumption of economics is arguably its faith in
general-purpose money and global markets as signaling-systems that promote the most efficient
allocation of resources. Contrary to this assumption, I shall argue that the logic of general-
purpose money in several respects promotes inefficiency, if other parameters such as energy are
taken into account. Of more immediate relevance in this context, however, is the inclination of
general-purpose money and global markets to reduce local socio-ecological resilience. This
conclusion can be derived from the systems-theoretical tenets of resilience theory itself. These
tenets can be used to argue for special-purpose currencies and local markets that complement
the global economy, rather than an undifferentiated globalization of resource flows. The
ultimate implications of resilience theory, in other words, are vastly more radical and subversive
than its current proponents imagine.
