Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

6.5 On uncertainty and time from a complex responsive
process-perspective
To reflect upon what happened during the paragrammatical discussions in my project,
I explore the potential of uncertainty and time within a complex responsive processapproach.
There are different reason to explore dimensions of uncertainty and time.
In reflecting on the narrative it is obvious that the way in which the discussions evolve
are unforeseen. Throughout time the subject and targets of the project are moving.
Although agenda’s are made, meetings evolve otherwise than planned. It is as if the
subject dissent leads a life of its own. It appears that none of the involved has a clear
perspective on what the subject comprises and none of the involved has a clear agenda
on what should come out of it. And even if perspectives and agenda’s would have
been clear, the outcome of the discussion would have been unpredictable. I think that
the precautions the think-tank takes before entering the discussion with the board,
indicates far more an expectation of passionate discussions than the kind of conversation
that evolved in reality.
Uncertainty is present in different ways. Given the way the discussions evolved I can
speak of uncertainty in an ontological and epistemological way at the same time, as it
becomes clear that something unforeseen comes out of the discussions because of the
discussions. Uncertainty is also present in a political or psychological way because of
the efforts everybody takes to prevent a derangement of the discussions. Uncertainty
is present with regard to the subject. From the beginning there is some uneasiness
and unfamiliarity about the feasibility to discuss such a subject. I call that a managerial
uncertainty.
Managerial uncertainty
To explain I want to draw attention to an in everyday life common, but generally taken
for granted social or symbolic context of different positions. I want to draw attention
to what Elias (1982) calls the fifth coordinate of human action: what people do together
is entangled in a symbolic figuration which people more or less share. Whatever
the differences are, whatever the conflicts or whatever the agreements are, some sort
of symbolic interpretation of social reality is shared. This symbolic figuration is a
construction in time (Tabboni, 2001). This is what Elias calls a symbolic figuration, a
figuration which does not need to be homogenous, but in which the heterogeneous
parts are mutually interdependent and, alternately and continuously constitute each
other. Still full of possibilities how things will evolve. The symbolic figuration can be
compared to what Homan (2006) calls the social fabric of relations among different
constructions of meaning. Every construction “… is swimming in a kind of bath of
ready-made meanings which elsewhere already are construed.” (Homan, 2006: 33).
‘Elsewhere’ can be interpreted as historically, (sub-)culturally, traditionally, socially,
locally or organizationally embedded or coming from next door. This social fabric
works as some sort of an implicit common sense. For instance on a very general level
6. A case of consent about dissent | 163