Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

Varying ways of pushing through a definition of reality are at hand. In our contemporary
civilized western society it is precluded that in daily life we use physical force to
superimpose our definitions of reality (Elias, 1969). In general we use courts of law,
coalitions, debate or meetings to overcome our differences. In the course of the 20th
century (Dutch) civilized people even had to switch from a commanding attitude to a
negotiating attitude, in which “... those involved regulate their interaction in mutual
consultation and approval.” (Swaan, 1979: 98). As a rule a negotiating attitude as the
hallmark of ordinary good behaviour in our (Dutch) society is cloaked in the manifold
of our conversations, in our paperwork and in our symbolic representations of reality
in for instance brands, movies, pictures and fashion. Communication has got a tremendous
importance regarding in whatever we do, including or maybe especially
regarding a subject like identity-management. Subtleties of different epistemological
strategies of including (and thus excluding) and reciprocal power are at work in the
process of defining reality (Foucault, 1966, 1971). Uncovering the ways reality is defined
on the micro level helps to explain how policy is brought about.
Two discourses compromising
As it has a great impact on defining reality the ongoing battle between a social systems-change
discourse and a co-creative discourse within the UAS is to be exemplified
in the discussions around the conclusions and recommendations.
Conceptually there is a sharp distinction between these two approaches of development
and change. On a discursive level a main difference between the approaches is
that the first one supposes that reality is stable, predictable and to a great extent
controllable. Rationality is supposed to rule. In the social systems change discourse
quasi outside managers and experts are dominant (Parsons, 2007; Stacey, 2007). This
approach incorporates a neat system of mission statements, midterm strategy development,
yearly planning and evaluation and it is practised in the UAS.
The co-creative discourse postulates that reality is changing, and interaction and
collective learning are needed whereby “... patterns of thinking and acting are dismantled
and composed: deconstruction and reconstruction.” (Wierdsma and Swieringa,
1990: 179).The co-creative discourse sets course on the willingness of people to
cooperate. In the UAS co-creation is amongst others advocated in developing educational
courses and doing research in cooperation with representatives of external
organizations and companies.
The discourses get extra dimensions if plotted in quadrants in which the way an
organization develops and changes is differentiated along axes of monovocal/polyvocal
and planning/spontaneity (Homan, 2005, 2006). Homan uses this quadrant to
show that in reality change is always a spontaneous many voiced (‘polyvocal’) affair. In
recent research regarding organizational values in UAS’s a differentiation is made
between control-oriented and flexibility-oriented organizational value models. It was
found that “... these are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are in competition.”
98