In March 2020, the coronavirus known as COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by World Health Organization [WHO] (2020a,b). In the opening remarks, the WHO director general was concerned by the lack of resources in some countries as well as the economic and social consequences that would result from the pandemic (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020b), thus indicating that social inequality, in terms of unequal distribution of or access to resources or positions and in terms of status or power, might be amplified by the pandemic. During the course of the pandemic, the social divide in societies has deepened, and social inequality has become more exposed (Kawachi, 2020). Thus, in this review, we focus on social inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic and explore the concepts of vulnerability and resilience in minority and marginalized groups.

Even before the pandemic, it was stated that “[t]he extent of inequality around the world is enormous” (p. 250) (Blackburn, 2008). Despite recognizing social inequality and its increase as problematic, it also “has become fashionable to ignore it” (p.250, ibid). The neglect of social inequality can be illustrated and comprehended with the Coin Model (Nixon, 2019). In this model, societal structures and systems of oppression, such as racism, classism, sexism, and ableism, are presented by a coin providing advantage or disadvantage for an individual depending on her/his group membership. Disadvantage for one social group usually means (unearned) privilege for another social group (Nixon, 2019). Advantages due to privilege are often considered to be based on meritocracy, thus cloaking privilege and inequality. However, again, the invisibility of privilege strengthens privilege in its power and persistence (Phillips and Lowery, 2020). Consequently, social inequality is not solely referring to an individual level but should be understood as the interplay between structural, systemic, and individual levels. In the sense of intersectionality, these levels are interconnected and intersecting. At the individual level, the social characteristics of diverseness, such as gender, ethnicity, and class, may intersect and create or shape inequalities resulting from social structures or systems of oppression (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). At the structural and systemic levels, systems of oppression impact society and individuals. These systems relate to racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, ableism, homophobia, and so forth. The systems are also subject to structural forces from politics, history, legislation, economy, and colonialization, to name a few (McCollum et al., 2019). In this sense, we have to consider social characteristics in their interwovenness, in their relation to structures and systems, and as unique individual experiences. With such an understanding, we may gain insight into oppression and power and their expression in the form of privilege and inequality (Crenshaw, 1989; Warner and Shields, 2013; Hankivsky, 2014; Collins, 2015; Moradi and Grzanka, 2017).

Social inequality is often discussed with reference to minority and marginalized groups. These concepts are connected, as marginalized groups overlap with minority groups. Minority and majority groups are often defined in terms of, e.g., social categories, power, or group size (Seyranian et al., 2008). Marginalization, as defined by Hall et al. (1994), initially referred to individuals or social groups on the margins due to their identity or social characteristics, environment, associations connected to a social group, and experiences. Marginalization is thereby a process that limits access to and participation in power, social, and political roles. Since Hall et al.’s initial definition of marginalization, the concept has been expanded and adjusted to include intersecting identities and social characteristics, power relations, exclusion from dominant discourses, and globalization (Hall and Carlson, 2016). Marginalization is based on structural (e.g., laws), systemic (e.g., oppression, such as racism), and individual levels (e.g., discrimination) and the interaction between these levels (Baah et al., 2019).

On this note, it is apprehensible that experiencing or living in the pandemic is not the same for every one (Kawachi, 2020; Gubrium and Gubrium, 2021), but it is impacted by multiple individual and structural levels shaping everyday lives. The COVID-19 pandemic is often referred to as a crisis, a trauma (Bridgland et al., 2021), or a disaster [cf (Wisner et al., 2004)], which affects the individual, systemic, and structural levels of a society and which has national and global impacts. A crisis is a comprehensive concept, which includes trauma and disasters (Shaluf et al., 2003) and should thus be understood as a continuum (Dulmus and Hilarski, 2003). A crisis (e.g., critical turning points in the lives of individuals) is marked by its impact on individuals and, beyond the individuals, by its potential of being perceived as a threat and by disrupting life spaces (Eastham et al., 1970). A crisis may have negative and positive effects, but some concepts related to the crisis, e.g., traumatic stressors or disasters, are focusing mostly on negative aspects. It is not solely the event itself that is characterized as traumatic or stressful but also the perception of an event as stressful or traumatic (Dulmus and Hilarski, 2003), which might vary across individuals. Feminist views on trauma theory emphasized social locations and intersections in the construction of trauma (Burstow, 2003; Quiros and Berger, 2015) and multiple interpretations of the term “trauma” (Tseris, 2013). Black, postcolonial, and indigenous analyses added a social and political understanding of trauma to a clinical one, with the latter focused on (emotional) response to traumatic events (Pain, 2020, 2021). Social and political aspects can be located in collective trauma as a shared, collective experience and a transgenerational understanding of trauma (Pain, 2020), including the impact of trauma due to membership to specific groups (Burstow, 2003). In this sense, trauma has to be considered in the context of oppression, in which oppression is a traumatizing component (Burstow, 2003). This view is particularly meaningful for minority or marginalized groups.

In the context of the pandemic, social inequality coincides with vulnerability to the pandemic and vulnerability due to the impact of the pandemic. Vulnerability can be defined as “characteristics of a person or a group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard” (p. 11) (Wisner et al., 2004). Combinations and intersections of social characteristics, social systems, and structural elements shape risk and vulnerability to hazards (e.g., the pandemic). They impact the access to resources and (unequal) exposure to hazards (Wisner et al., 2004). This underlines that experiencing the pandemic and its impact is, among other aspects, influenced by social inequality.

Vulnerability is usually seen as something undesirable and has the notion of resulting in “a barrier between two social worlds, which isolates and marginalizes the wounded.”(p. 255) (Baiasu, 2020). Baiasu (2020) highlights that such an understanding of vulnerability also creates asymmetry, stigmatization, and marginalization. Vulnerability is also seen as pre-event aspect, which affects the chance of experiencing risk or harm (Cutter et al., 2008). Subsequently, the concept of resilience may be seen as a promise to overcome vulnerability and stigmatization, as resilience is often considered as a counterpart of vulnerability. In the context of mental health and social sciences, resilience has received considerable attention since its conceptualization. In the 1970s, resilience was observed in children growing up in adverse environments. Emmy Werner et al. found that not all of these children entered a vicious circle of adversity, violence, or crime, but some of them grew up to be mentally healthy and “successful” adults (Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992; Werner, 1989). Since then, resilience has been conceptualized as, e.g., individual, psychological, social, ecological, and community resilience (Quinlan et al., 2016), each highlighting specific aspects of resilience. In particular, a review on social resilience in the context of disaster concluded that resilience refers to the ability of social entities (e.g., individuals, families, organizations, and communities) that are connected to social mechanisms to cope, withstand, and/or recover from disasters (Saja et al., 2021). Such an understanding of resilience shows the interconnection to vulnerability. In the context of vulnerability social characteristics and mechanisms impede the capacity to cope, withstand, or recover (Wisner et al., 2004), whereas resilience refers to the interplay of mechanisms and characteristics enabling this very capacity (Saja et al., 2021). In this viewpoint, the social system “absorbs” the impact of a hazard (Cutter et al., 2008). Additionally, the adaptive function of resilience affects the time after a disaster. Nevertheless, resilience is not a stable and fixed phenomenon but is dynamic in nature and might vary over time (Cutter et al., 2008; Saja et al., 2021). Moreover, resilience is a contested concept (Davoudi et al., 2012), critiqued for centering on ableism, hegemony, and positivism (Hutcheon and Lashewicz, 2014). For example, resilience is embedded in a socially constructed context of crisis (Davoudi et al., 2012) and, thus, constructed itself. In this sense, resilience should be understood in its context with regard to subjectivity, meaning-making, and its potential to resume or increase connectivity (Hutcheon and Lashewicz, 2014). A socio-constructivist understanding of resilience allows for understanding the concept with its diverse trajectories and shapes. This perspective extends the concept beyond its (critiqued) normative function.

In this review, we focus on the understanding of resilience as an interplay between social systems and individuals. We see resilience as a capacity to adapt in times of adversity and as embedded in social processes that enable the process of resilience (Juen and Siller, 2013). Consequently, the resilience of an individual is understood in the context of social systems (e.g., community and state), which provide resources for the individual. We acknowledge that resilience is shared but also subjective and constructed. Multiple understanding of resilience and co-existing narratives of resilience illustrate the diversity and socio-constructivist nature of resilience as a concept (Powell et al., 2014). As can be derived from the definitions of vulnerability and resilience, vulnerability is ascribed to the context in which individuals and groups live, often labeled as disadvantaged, minority or marginalized, pre-event, whereas resilience is referred to during or post-event. In the context of vulnerability, we acknowledge that not individuals or groups are vulnerable, but that the situation and structures in which they are embedded create vulnerability.

As drafted in this introduction, we seek to understand vulnerability and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic using an intersectional lens. By means of a narrative literature review, we explore these concepts in minority and marginalized groups in the context of social inequality.

To include relevant articles, several databases were searched. These databases were Web of Science and Core Collection, and via Ovid^® we searched APA PsychArticles, APA PsychInfo, and Ovid Medline(r).

Search terms included “social inequality” or “privilege,” “minor*” or “marginal*,” and “COVID-19” or “corona.” On Web of Science, this search strategy yielded 45 results. Of these, 1 was double, 4 were not related to COVID-19, 2 were in Spanish, and 1 could not be retrieved. Via Ovid^®, 66 results were found. Of these, 4 were removed because they were duplicates, 24 were not related to COVID-19, and 9 did not focus on social inequality.

An additional search on the Web of Science included resilience and inequality (all fields) and COVID-19 or corona (all fields) and marginal* or minor* (all fields) and resulted in 12 results, via Ovid^®, this search strategy yielded 28 results. Of the 28 results, 16 were not related to COVID-19 or inequality, and 1 was a proceeding. To double-check, another search was performed on resilience (all fields) and COVID-19 or corona or pandemic (all fields) and social inequality or minor* or marginal* (all fields). This search strategy yielded 205 results, 58 of these were included after initial screening of the titles. Despite not limiting the search to any specific language, only English articles were obtained. The inclusion of English articles only contributes to silencing other voices in this area. Unfortunately, discussion of such matter (e.g., implications of English as “lingua franca” in academic publications) is out of the scope of this article [see, e.g., (Pronskikh, 2018; Soler, 2019)].

Of the remaining 147 articles, the abstracts were read to determine inclusion in the narrative review. The inclusion criteria included focus on (1) vulnerability (explicitly) and/or resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) minority or marginalized social groups or individuals, and (3) social inequality and/or privilege. We searched for articles that discussed vulnerability and resilience.

The exclusion criteria included a general discussion of distress and vulnerability during the pandemic, no specific focus on vulnerability or/and resilience but on social justice, and increased social divide or increased inequality. Articles were excluded if they did not focus on social inequality, did not discuss social groups, or focused on something else than COVID-19 (also refer to Figure 1).

Overall, 48 articles were included in this narrative review. Most of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 24), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 4), Israel (n = 4), and Canada (n = 4). The articles included surveys on several countries (n = 4), followed by reviews with no specific (named) country-specific domination (n = 2). Furthermore, articles focused on Malaysia (n = 2), China (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Latin America (n = 1), and Nigeria (n = 1). Most of the articles focused on either exclusively or several of the following categories of social inequality: racism or ethnic/racial inequality (n = 19), LGBT, LGBTQI +, LGBTQI2S +, and sexual and gender minorities (n = 10), followed by diverse “vulnerable” groups (n = 5), socio-economic status, poverty, class (n = 9), ageism, older or elderly people (n = 2), chronic mental illness or psychiatric patients (n = 3), migrant workers, refugees, migrants (n = 2), chronic illness (n = 2), and sex workers (n = 1). Given the relatively short existence of the pandemic, 19 of the articles were of empirical nature, 26 were commentaries, perspectives, or (non-systematic) reviews, one was a systemic review, and one was a review on media and publications. An overview of the articles can be found in Table 1.

In this article, we searched for resilience and vulnerability in minority and marginalized groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic may be viewed as a crisis or as trauma to grasp its impact. Sullivan et al. even referred to it as a disaster (Sullivan et al., 2021), which is also accurate as a disaster is conceptualized as an interplay between the hazard as such and its social impact (Wisner et al., 2004). Social consequences and increasing social divide in societies resulting from the pandemic were also mentioned at the onset of the pandemic (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020b) and are a global concern.

In our review, we found that the impact of the pandemic on social inequality is referred to in terms of the impact of mitigating measures to contain the spread of the virus or the government neglecting to implement timely measures. Derived from the analysis of the literature, it is the context of mitigating measures, which exacerbate social inequality and potential vulnerability [cf (Cutter et al., 2008)]. We argue that it is potential vulnerability, as we see (1) vulnerability in interaction with resilience but not in opposition to resilience and (2) vulnerability through structures and systems as having the potential to increase adverse effects on individuals and communities. In this sense, we do not see vulnerability as an irrevocable outcome for minority and marginalized groups but as a product of structures and systems creating adversity for minority and marginalized groups and individuals.

Based on our review, we deduced three working hypotheses:

Whereas one focus has been on the impact of the pandemic on social inequality and roots of social inequality in systems of oppression, studies have also shown that we need to address inequality at a global level. For example, the unequal distribution of jobs that may be performed at home is not only evident at a national level but also in comparison between higher- and lower-income countries (Sanchez et al., 2021). Similarly, in their review on six countries ranging from Mexico and Colombia to Nigeria, South Korea, India, and Nepal, Chackalackal et al. (2021) concluded that measures to contain the virus focused on possibilities in high-income countries but were not necessarily translatable to lower-income countries. Additionally, the effects of climate change may affect those in crowded housing and with less access to urban green spaces and increase inequality even further, as discussed in an article with United States focus (Bikomeye et al., 2021). Urban green spaces are enjoyed in varying degrees in different countries, as urban green spaces may be restricted in their access (García de Jalón et al., 2020) or larger, desirable green spaces may not be available (Wendel et al., 2011). Therefore, social inequality in terms of privilege and oppression should not only be considered at societal and individual levels and with regard to the specific context of a country or a state. Inequality should be additionally assessed across countries and continents, thus on a global scale. Social inequality at a global level appears to be a larger representation of structural and systemic levels creating social inequality and vulnerability at societal and individual levels, and vice versa. This also implies that studies should provide more contextualized information, so future studies building on the findings can further investigate potential global and potential context/country-specific aspects. Thus, we need to consider the global impact on national inequality.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not just a crisis at an international level impacting marginalized and minority groups to a great extent. It may also be experienced in relation to collective and historical trauma. Such collective trauma is experienced differently by diverse groups across countries (e.g., Canada, United States, and Arabic countries) and exacerbates the feelings of vulnerability or threat (Diaz et al., 2021; Kira et al., 2021; Waruszynski et al., 2021). Additional stressors, such as murders of members of the Black and people of color community, further impede a sense of safety and contribute to the history and transgenerational trauma in the community, as shown by an example from the United States (Herbers et al., 2021). Vulnerability must be understood with its historic roots that are noticeable in today’s social inequality. Thereby, potential vulnerability is transported by means of education, regulations, and measures to contain COVID-19, housing, and employment, and working condition, which are built on majority and high-income, thus privileged, context and neglect minority and marginalized voices (Mahon and Mahon, 2021). Whereas this potential vulnerability is situated at structural levels, it is translated to social groups and individuals through systems of oppression, such as racism, classism, ableism, and heteronormativity. The implications of what is defined as vulnerable and vulnerability has direct relevance for diverse social groups and individuals (Hutcheon and Lashewicz, 2014). By perpetuating the history of abuse and discrimination of marginalized groups, inequality is reinforced (Krishnan et al., 2020) and not reduced [refer also to Pain (2020)]. These mechanisms are noticeable in and maintained at the communal, societal, national, and global levels. Intensifying interdisciplinary approaches, e.g., Black, postcolonial, queer, and feminist theories and perspectives, in (e.g., health) research will deepen the knowledge of the meaning of vulnerability and further evolve concepts and mitigation strategies to decrease inequality during a pandemic or other crisis.

Vulnerability is not (only) seen in terms of hardship but also in terms of empowerment. For example, Gao and Sai (2021) stated, that “[w]riting through vulnerability liberates us to heal, to calm down, and to find meanings in our lived experiences” (p.188). In the United States, marginalized and minority groups found strength and resilience in their previous experiences with hardship (Gonzalez et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2021), acknowledgment of collective fate (Cheng et al., 2021), and the history of their community or their ancestors (Abreu et al., 2021). Similar to revisiting the history of discrimination and abuse of marginalized groups, acknowledging these as well as contextualizing current vulnerability and inequality from such a historically informed perspective (Krishnan et al., 2020), resilience must be understood in terms of historically created vulnerability and through such vulnerability. Renewed or newly found connection to one’s community (Mahon and Mahon, 2021), identification with values of a community (Hiebert and Kortes-Miller, 2021), and advocacy for (other) marginalized groups benefit (Abreu et al., 2021; Gonzalez et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2021) resilience. This underscores the importance of feeling part of a community and a sense of belonging to a community. Resilience and interventions to stimulate or increase resilience referred to advocacy, connectedness, social support, and collective action to stimulate efficacy. This emphasized the interaction between an individual and the environment (Herbers et al., 2021). Self- and collective efficacy and social connectedness are well-established aspects fostering resilience in disasters (Hobfoll et al., 2007) and are prevalent in studies reviewed in this context. Beyond these aspects, identity and historical embedding of vulnerability and inequality may be particularly important for minority and marginalized and groups and individuals [refer to, e.g., (Hutcheon and Lashewicz, 2014)]. Thus, resilience has been found in the context of previous experiences with vulnerability (Gonzalez et al., 2021). This is particularly true if referring to vulnerability as discussed by Baiasu (2020), who also saw vulnerability as openness. Such openness may be discussed in terms of having experienced vulnerability, which in turn did not result in personally closing up to protect oneself but embracing these experiences to build strength. Further endeavors should acknowledge Black, postcolonial, indigenous, queer, and feminist perspectives in trauma and resilience research, as they have already pointed out the role of collective trauma and its social, political, and structural implications (Pain, 2020, 2021) but are not well-integrated in many trauma and resilience research studies. Additionally, it shows that multiplicity of resilience and resilience narratives has to be acknowledged and understood in their contextual, subjective, and constructivist embedding (Hutcheon and Lashewicz, 2014; Powell et al., 2014).

Our review highlights that we need to critically review which voices have been neglected in the development of concepts. Gaillard and Mercer (2012) emphasized that “our inability to bring all actors, usually working at different scales and in dissimilar directions, together around the same table” (p. 101) causes a lack of collaboration between different actors in creating a dialog (Gaillard and Mercer, 2012). This statement bears resemblance to our review: diverse voices need to be visible in models and concepts focusing on marginalized and minority groups, vulnerability and resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic (as one example for adversities). As shown, resilience includes vulnerability in terms of acknowledging discrimination as collective and common fate (Cheng et al., 2021), in terms of historical discrimination, and in terms of structures at a global level that are reflected in each society and impact individuals. Understanding collective trauma in marginalized groups and its contribution in increasing vulnerability and inequality (Cheng et al., 2021; Kira et al., 2021) is important; another side of collective trauma from a present and historical point of view refers to providing strength and confidence (Baiasu, 2020; Abreu et al., 2021; Gonzalez et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2021). Critical acceptance of one’s identity (Gonzalez et al., 2021) or identities, as well as standing by these may provide a sense of belonging to the community. In relation to collective and historical trauma, such identities and belonging might elicit specific and unique constructions of resilience in minority and marginalized groups and individuals, as is also proposed by feminist, Black, queer, and indigenous approaches [refer to Burstow (2003); Tseris (2013); Pain (2020)].

HS and NA have both substantially contributed to writing this article, critically reviewed the findings, and discussed and revised the draft. HS conceptualized the idea, performed the search, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Both authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.