Rumbling on performativity_Frits Simon

Table 3: Summary of used arguments
Social technological
discourse
Corporate Critical Friend;
corporate governance;
constructive dissenting
opinions; swearing an oath;
rules to the extent of
human beings; a deal is a
deal; risk management;
quality of professionals;
performativity of policy;
existing cultural and
behavioural habits;
complexity of subjects;
instrumentality of policy;
planning-process
Political discourse
Countervailing power;
political cleverness;
perversion of policy;
obstruction; hierarchy;
status; mutual relations;
tactical behaviour;
language games; myths;
distrust; technocracy;
behavioural aspects like
fear, avoidance, vulnerability
Resilience discourse
To prevent mismanagement;
dissenting opinions;
company blindness;
jestership; organizational
reflexivity; reflexive conversations;
reflexive evaluations;
openness; integrity;
discursive discussions;
break off!
With political spectacles on my nose I see other dimensions in the discussions. Obvious
hierarchy and control are there when ‘safety to discuss’ becomes a topic. Everybody
realizes the paradoxical situation in which we try to discuss in openness about a
lack of openness around certain subjects. A more striking exemplar is the difference in
the way topics are discussed. In the think-tank someone uses the term ‘perversion’ or
‘technocratic’ to qualify certain aspects of policy. In my meeting with the board ‘lack of
trust’ passes in review. But in the joint meeting these rather burdened terms are not
used. If the joint meeting is to be qualified as the official meeting of different parties
then I can see how Scott’s concept of hidden and public transcripts is useful to politicize
the meeting (Scott, 1990). The joint meeting was rather safe and comfortable; a
respectable performance so to say. However, being in the own group other conceptions
were used, but contrary to what Scott suggests, hidden transcripts are not a
matter of subordinates alone. A superordinate exhibits the same behaviour. When
people join, people act as chameleons and blend into the situation (Homan, 2005).
This ‘blending in’ can be read as political behaviour, however – once again – should not
be read as a one sided locking in by superordinates. In line with what Homan (2013)
states, in my experience in the discussions onstage and offstage behaviour is exhibited
by all involved.
From the perspectives of risk management or resilience, dissent has something to do
with being perceptive for small differences. “Needed are perceptive ways of working
which promote imagination, enrich experiences, provoke doubt about all expectations,
give the ability to provide new significance to small disruptions of expectations, and
facilitates learning which intensifies and deepens alertness.” (Weick and Sutcliffe,
2007: 32). Weick and Sutcliffe list a number of activities which should be raised to be
6. A case of consent about dissent | 161