Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

evolution (Prigogine, 1996; Prigogine and Stengers, 1988), figurational sociology (Elias,
1969) and interactionist psychology (Mead, 1934). From a naturalistic point of view we
are living in a world that is defined by probability, and thus a world which is uncertain
and unpredictable (Prigogine, 1996). Despite the existing order which emerges in
processes of self-organization of multiple elements, we live on an edge of chaos
(Homan, 2005; Zuijderhoudt, 2007). Transferred to our social and organizational
reality the science of complexity has its focus “… on how random connections between
people and the simple decision rules they use can lead to complex global patterns of
behavior taking the form of new strategic direction and organizational renewal.”
(Stacey, 2012a: 25). From a complex responsive process-perspective the focus is on
how out of local interactions among people global patterns arise. These patterns
provide order but due to on-going responsive processes change all the time. The work
of Elias, Foucault and Mead helps to understand the micro-dynamics of power and
responsiveness in local interactions.
According to the complex responsive process-perspective power is omnipresent. Only
apparently power is absent in the project-discussions, despite the respectable way the
discussions evolved. However, for this perception one needs a different perspective on
power. In line with the civilization-hypothesis of Elias (1969) and the concept of micropower
of Foucault (1976) power is indissolubly present in all human interactions. In the
mutual defining of a situation as real, power continuously is present in which definitions
gain and lose ground, or in a more general sense in the way a more or less negotiated
perception of the situation is evolving. In human interactions power works in an
enabling and constraining way, by including and excluding aspects and thereby producing
order (Stacey, 2012b). However, order which is not conscious and more or less
rationally planned, but a temporarily result of the interactions including stabilizing and
changing power figurations.
Around the subject of dissent language games are played concerning countervailing
power, openness, dissenting or even constructive dissenting opinions and voices, and
due to my unfamiliarity with the English language even the urban expression ‘backchat’
passed in review. If the consequences of a definition of a situation are real (Thomas
and Thomas, 1928) from a power perspective it really matters which definition
prevails in its social construction. Moreover, as clarified with the concept of hidden
and public transcripts (Scott, 1990) it is obvious that which definitions or concepts are
used depends on the presence of real others in the situation. The factually used language
is a matter of responsiveness.
So, if only within the safety of the own group expressions like ‘technocratic’ or ‘lack of
trust’ were used, is the explanation of what happened then cunning and strategic
behaviour? Were we behind our masks of respectable and civilized behaviour calculating
and estimating what to say with what effect? Were we desperately controlling
our situations? The ground-breaking work of Mead supports answering these questions.
In maybe what we nowadays would call a social constructionist approach (Ger-
6. A case of consent about dissent | 165