Introduction

Societal transformations toward sustainability and justice have recently encountered significant backlash, characterised by political polarisation, violent conflict, and democratic backsliding. This article distinguishes backlash from regular forms of resistance or contentious politics. Backlash is defined as involving a retrograde objective or imaginary, an extraordinary challenge to dominant principles or practices, and reaching a threshold where it becomes mainstreamed in public discourse. Crucially, the emergence of backlash is often perceived as abrupt and unanticipated by the dominant system. These dynamics raise questions about how backlash can lead to the derailment of ongoing efforts seeking fundamental shifts in system power, authority, and resource structures.

Basins of attraction and x-curve: A resilience perspective on transformation

From a social-ecological systems resilience perspective, transformations are often depicted using the ‘cup and ball’ model, where a dominant system state represents a basin organized around an attractor. Transformations involve shifting between these basins across different phases: preparation, transition, and consolidation. Another model used is the X-curve, which depicts trajectories where a dominant incumbent system breaks down while an emerging alternative develops. Both frameworks highlight a critical ‘in-between’ phase of transition. This phase is often a state of limbo characterised by high uncertainty, turbulence, and ‘in-betweenness’, where the risk associated with backlash and derailment is particularly high.

Different roles of backlash and risks of derailment

The authors propose three archetypes of backlash dynamics that may emerge during transformations. Archetype 1 involves individuals or groups who feel increasingly marginalised or dissatisfied with the status quo but resist the unmaking of existing systems due to fears of immediate losses, such as livelihoods or identity. If these grievances are ignored, they can be mobilised into emotional rage and attracted to retrograde imaginaries. Archetype 2 involves groups deliberately creating an entirely different system basin by dismantling sustainability efforts through strategies like democratic backsliding, radical populism, and the spread of disinformation. Archetype 3 emerges from incumbents who may theoretically support change but practically act to protect the status quo or push for alternative basins that secure their existing benefits, often through greenwashing or withdrawing support during economic crises.

Transformative capacities for navigating backlash dynamics

Failing to address backlash can lead to severe consequences, including system derailment and the introduction of new risks to international peace and security. The authors argue for the development of capacities to create ‘provisional spaces’ or temporary stabilization basins to address emotional, relational, and political issues. Three specific transformative capacities are explored. First, harnessing hope and imagination is essential to motivate people and imagine actionable alternative futures. This involves grounding collective hope in an understanding of the transformations sought and re-igniting hope to divert people from retrograde imaginaries.

Second, hospicing with dignity involves the ‘letting go’ of old, dysfunctional system aspects while recognising the need to grieve associated losses. This capacity helps identify and navigate the resistance that emerges when people feel they are losing their identity or ingrained roles, potentially lessening grievances that contribute to backlash. Third, enabling radical collaboration while holding paradoxes is crucial for contexts where actors hold distant values or ideologies. This involves ‘stretch collaboration’ which recognises both conflict and connection, using methods like citizen assemblies and deliberative democracy initiatives to create space for constructive interaction amidst polarising challenges.

Conclusion

Transformative change involves not just what needs to be changed, but how systems can navigate the ‘in-between’ states where backlash is most prevalent. The three proposed capacities—harnessing hope, hospicing with dignity, and radical collaboration—play vital roles in addressing identity-based grievances, retrograde imaginaries, and institutional dismantling. These are not simple solutions but essential processes for people on the frontlines of transformative change. Future research is needed to empirically investigate these relationships and find ways to advance regenerative approaches that reconnect humanity to the biosphere and promote justice in a complex social-ecological system.