Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

it is common sense that we are human beings. An example more specific in my narrative
is that the involved people share the idea that they are working in Higher Education
within the same UAS.
I think there is a symbolic configuration which holds the discussions of the involved in
the discussions about dissent together despite the different positions. It is uncertainty.
It is uncertainty expressed in differences of opinion about the (best) way to organize
and to manage the UAS, about the ongoing criticism on results and the uncertainty
about if the chosen solutions will bring what is hoped for. This uncertainty encloses
differences in opinions. However, the differences are limited by the presence of other
opinions of others and tied together within the symbolic figuration. If there are to
detect traces of a panoptical psychological pressure, these traces are to detect in
uncertainty. “Be sure to be evaluated, but never when and against which criteria”, that
is in a nutshell the psychology of the Panopticon (Foucault, 1975). The mentioned
before ongoing public debate about Higher Education, the introduction of performance
agreements, the refinement and need of instruments of measurement and
control, in brief, the experience of permanently being evaluated brings about uncertainty
about what and how to do. Talking is a way out of uncertainty; it is about
coordination and control.
The discussions about dissent fit into this perspective. In a global sense the theme was
if ‘we’ were better off if dissenting opinions were heard. Of course there were different
opinions about the theme and different solutions to reduce uncertainty. To reduce
uncertainty it was even attempted to exclude existing hierarchical relations, which
normally function to reduce uncertainty by dividing responsibilities. However, the
discussions up till now did not lead to a measurable solution and I doubt there ever will
be. Uncertainty, power and conversational reduction of uncertainty will always be
there, will be continuously going on. To start reflecting from that perspective is what
makes a complex responsive process-approach a valuable alternative to explain what
happened.
I relate uncertainty to time because whatever the uncertainties are, provisional and
temporarily conclusions are arrived upon, while being altered thereafter, and thereafter
and so on. Temporarily there are outcomes, though contrary to conventional
expectations different in terms of passionate discussions on power relations and
different in terms of measurable targets or a project-plan.
A complex responsive process-perspective on the discussions about dissent
A complex responsive process-approach offers a perspective in which a multitude of
perspectives is acknowledged without the intention of becoming normative regarding
a one way solution or explanation for what happens in real life. The connection of
complexity, responsiveness and process-orientedness marks a complex responsive
process-approach. As indicated in chapter two foundational concepts of this approach
are predominantly found in natural sciences emphasizing irreversibility of time and
164