Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

From a political perspective framing is defined as a process of selective influence over
someone’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrase, with the purpose
to encourage certain interpretations (Lakoff, 2008). Framing is part of a narrative
strategy in which someone tries to compel others to interpret the world according to
his or her view. In the USA framing is used during elections as a highly political business
of influencing people (Lakoff, 2008; Westen, 2007). From the way the UAS’s are
framed in Dutch public media on supposed bad quality, fraud, lack of supervision and
ill-considered innovations I can also derive the political impact of framing (Gendt and
Ritzen, 2011). The basic assumption of framing is that if for a long time you can focus
the attention of someone else on certain aspects of a subject, that person will adopt
the interpretations of the subject at hand (Schwartz et al., 2011). Alternatively instead
of frames one could speak of trying to influence someone’s prototypical scenario’s
(Gibbs, 2006) or patterns of significance (Homan, 2006).
Not a shrewd ventriloquist
Following the line of argument of the definition of framing it is obvious that framing
postulates a shrewd genius who is able to plan a re-programming of other people. So,
in my job as adviser am I a shrewd ‘re-programmer’? I would be dishonest if I denied
that from time to time I evaluate my work from that perspective. Of course I reflect on
how to formulate my advices, which words and concepts to use. Of course I am aware
that the nature of my work depends on tenacious efforts to accomplish something. In
my time as a lecturer I learned from the science of teaching that an effective way to
teach is a matter of designing constructive frictions in the assignments (Vermunt,
1994), a matter of small step framing. From a social constructionist perspective I see
my work as spreading words and concepts with the purpose of reaping success later, a
rather memetic strategy (Brodie, 2009). Clearly this means that my advices are in line
with my co-creative preferences. In the drafts of the e-mails or letters I write this is
recognizable. Now I even recognize the impact of avoidance of cognitive dissonance, if
my advices and language are adopted. Public commitment of for instance the President
of the Board with my advice means that he is committed to my statements. So
‘re-programming’ my superior would be successful if I hear him state things which I
prepared for him? In that case I really would have manipulative competences and I
would be my superior’s ventriloquist.
If I would interpret the prototypical scenarios of my superiors as a bunch of personal
mental belongings (mental representations) which they use to manage the UAS, and if
I could acknowledge that something changed in their representations of the UAS in
line with my perspective, then I could say that I am a shrewd re-programmer. However,
reflecting on that for me it becomes clear that the avoidance of cognitive dissonance
is not a one-sided phenomenon. In psychological experiments regarding cognitive
dissonance in his or her laboratory the experimental researcher can play the
shrewd role, controls more or less the environment and programs an attitude-change.
As if their experiments are 18th century’s cinematographic phantasmagorias experimental
psychologist believe that their experiments allow them “... to slow down
106