Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
evoluti<strong>on</strong> (Prigogine, 1996; Prigogine and Stengers, 1988), figurati<strong>on</strong>al sociology (Elias,<br />
1969) and interacti<strong>on</strong>ist psychology (Mead, 1934). From a naturalistic point of view we<br />
are living in a world that is defined by probability, and thus a world which is uncertain<br />
and unpredictable (Prigogine, 1996). Despite the existing order which emerges in<br />
processes of self-organizati<strong>on</strong> of multiple elements, we live <strong>on</strong> an edge of chaos<br />
(Homan, 2005; Zuijderhoudt, 2007). Transferred to our social and organizati<strong>on</strong>al<br />
reality the science of complexity has its focus “… <strong>on</strong> how random c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s between<br />
people and the simple decisi<strong>on</strong> rules they use can lead to complex global patterns of<br />
behavior taking the form of new strategic directi<strong>on</strong> and organizati<strong>on</strong>al renewal.”<br />
(Stacey, 2012a: 25). From a complex resp<strong>on</strong>sive process-perspective the focus is <strong>on</strong><br />
how out of local interacti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g people global patterns arise. These patterns<br />
provide order but due to <strong>on</strong>-going resp<strong>on</strong>sive processes change all the time. The work<br />
of Elias, Foucault and Mead helps to understand the micro-dynamics of power and<br />
resp<strong>on</strong>siveness in local interacti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
According to the complex resp<strong>on</strong>sive process-perspective power is omnipresent. Only<br />
apparently power is absent in the project-discussi<strong>on</strong>s, despite the respectable way the<br />
discussi<strong>on</strong>s evolved. However, for this percepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e needs a different perspective <strong>on</strong><br />
power. In line with the civilizati<strong>on</strong>-hypothesis of Elias (1969) and the c<strong>on</strong>cept of micropower<br />
of Foucault (1976) power is indissolubly present in all human interacti<strong>on</strong>s. In the<br />
mutual defining of a situati<strong>on</strong> as real, power c<strong>on</strong>tinuously is present in which definiti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
gain and lose ground, or in a more general sense in the way a more or less negotiated<br />
percepti<strong>on</strong> of the situati<strong>on</strong> is evolving. In human interacti<strong>on</strong>s power works in an<br />
enabling and c<strong>on</strong>straining way, by including and excluding aspects and thereby producing<br />
order (Stacey, 2012b). However, order which is not c<strong>on</strong>scious and more or less<br />
rati<strong>on</strong>ally planned, but a temporarily result of the interacti<strong>on</strong>s including stabilizing and<br />
changing power figurati<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Around the subject of dissent language games are played c<strong>on</strong>cerning countervailing<br />
power, openness, dissenting or even c<strong>on</strong>structive dissenting opini<strong>on</strong>s and voices, and<br />
due to my unfamiliarity with the English language even the urban expressi<strong>on</strong> ‘backchat’<br />
passed in review. If the c<strong>on</strong>sequences of a definiti<strong>on</strong> of a situati<strong>on</strong> are real (Thomas<br />
and Thomas, 1928) from a power perspective it really matters which definiti<strong>on</strong><br />
prevails in its social c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. Moreover, as clarified with the c<strong>on</strong>cept of hidden<br />
and public transcripts (Scott, 1990) it is obvious that which definiti<strong>on</strong>s or c<strong>on</strong>cepts are<br />
used depends <strong>on</strong> the presence of real others in the situati<strong>on</strong>. The factually used language<br />
is a matter of resp<strong>on</strong>siveness.<br />
So, if <strong>on</strong>ly within the safety of the own group expressi<strong>on</strong>s like ‘technocratic’ or ‘lack of<br />
trust’ were used, is the explanati<strong>on</strong> of what happened then cunning and strategic<br />
behaviour? Were we behind our masks of respectable and civilized behaviour calculating<br />
and estimating what to say with what effect? Were we desperately c<strong>on</strong>trolling<br />
our situati<strong>on</strong>s? The ground-breaking work of Mead supports answering these questi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
In maybe what we nowadays would call a social c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>ist approach (Ger-<br />
6. A case of c<strong>on</strong>sent about dissent | 165