A security discourse that resides upon the concepts of the grey zone and hybrid threats iscurrently emerging among international security actors and policy-makers. In the currentsecurity environment, it is assumed that antagonistic actors threaten democratic statesthrough a range of hybrid threats aimed at instilling confusion and inertia concerning how torespond and disrupting political and administrative capacity. This article analyzes thisdiscourse and the policy responses that have been proposed, noting that the key organizingconcept in responding to hybrid threats is resilience. This concept is potentially problematicin that resilience has been critically examined as controversial and political in nature insofaras it promotes programmatic preparedness and social control, demanding that civil society,market actors, and individuals “rally ‘round the flag” and contribute to wide-ranging nationalsecurity management. Proponents of this view nonetheless continue to present resilience asa panacea for current security problems. This article reveals, however, that resilience is aproductive and organizing concept and practice that is presented without the necessaryboundaries and limits. This illustrates the need for a critical discussion concerning how muchresilience is enough.
Accepted for publication in forthcoming anthology on Resilience