Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

In retrospect it is to conclude that in some way I was provoking reflexivity during the
drawing up the performance agreements, fed from the perspective of an uncontrollable
reality and a poor history of planning change within the UAS. I started to see my
behaviour a bit as gestures of a jester, emerging in the interactions with others. Apparently
I was the only one who explicitly raised some principal questions regarding
what we had or planned to do and therefore by others involved qualified as cynical.
However, this cynicism was accepted, in due course expected and it even facilitated to
formulate attainable results. As such my conclusion is that due to the interactions also
the perspectives of the others involved in the discussions changed, generally speaking:
became less ambitious. I rumbled on the obviousness of performativity. At that time a
denomination as a jester or - more responsive - a corporate critical friend seemed to
be a logical thing to do and was seriously discussed with the President of the Board.
The 1st demise of the corporate critical friend
The last narrative was about dissent. It was originated by intentions regarding a
critical corporate friend, by uneasiness about recent incidents in educational institutions,
by a wish to be aware of potential derangements in an early stage and by dissatisfaction
about the results of formal policy. Originally this was captured in a wish for
more openness. However, to institutionalize openness in a function like a corporate
critical friend was abandoned in an early stage of the discussions. To develop an
alternative was not an easy assignment. Discussions with and among the members of
the board and with and among the members of a think-tank made recognizable that
openness or criticism or dissent were wished for different reasons. A willingness to
discuss about the topic emerged. It appeared that the people involved wanted to learn
and wanted to discuss to seek ways to go beyond the illusions of every day. However
first experiences showed that discussing beyond existing (hierarchical) relations and
existing prescriptive agreements is not an easy thing to do. Two conclusions were
shared: discussing should enable to interrupt the normality of everyday practices, and
despite all uncertainty we should continue to discuss with each other (and potentially
others) the topic of dissent.
It is remarkable that the subject of a corporate jester emerged due to discussions in
the learning group, to what I did in my job as advisers and how I discussed the subject
with members of the board and different colleagues, However, the subject of jestership
also was put off the agenda due to the interactions.
Wanted: spurs against performativity
Being, not being and not becoming a corporate critical friend I participated in a process
in which something interesting happened. It was and is a process in which discomfort
and care glared through; discomfort with the way policy was designed and
realized, discomfort with what I came to call performative-oriented policy. Care for
doing the right things in the right way appeared to be leading in daily practice. The
discomfort and care were shared for varying reasons. Uneasiness about controllability,
about involvement and priorities, and ideological differences. I reflected upon it as a
7. <strong>Rumbling</strong> on performativity: a reflexive perspective on advisory work | 181