Performative governance: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Just as well this kind of thing could never happen in a corporate environment. | Just as well this kind of thing could never happen in a corporate environment. | ||
“Performative” is a voguish word, and if the learned author thinks she’s discovered something new — that administrators manage [[second-order derivative]]s and [[Proxy|proxies]] of their political problems rather than engaging in the political problems themselves — she would do herself a favour by reading {{author|James C. Scott}}, {{author|Jane Jacobs}} and others who have been articulating these ideas for seventy or more years — but ''since'' its fashionable, and since it ''is'' bang-on the money, let’s go with it. | “Performative” is a voguish word, and if the learned author thinks she’s discovered something new — that administrators manage [[second-order derivative]]s and [[Proxy|proxies]] of their political problems rather than engaging in the political problems themselves — she would do herself a favour by reading {{author|James C. Scott}}, {{author|Jane Jacobs}}, {{author|W. Edwards Deming}} and others who have been articulating these ideas for seventy or more years — but ''since'' its fashionable, and since it ''is'' bang-on the money, let’s go with it. | ||
With — perhaps — a spin. You perform governance, generally, by approximating it: creating crude, two-dimensional stick-figure illustrations of a four-dimensional<ref>Yes: ''four'', and I don’t even need to exceed Euclidean geometry to get there: governance propositions mutate over ''time''.</ref>reality which is genuinely ineffable: with social systems there is never the necessary information, nor boundaries, for any simplistic representation to work. | With — perhaps — a spin. You perform governance, generally, by approximating it: creating crude, two-dimensional stick-figure illustrations of a four-dimensional<ref>Yes: ''four'', and I don’t even need to exceed Euclidean geometry to get there: governance propositions mutate over ''time''.</ref>reality which is genuinely ineffable: with social systems there is never the necessary information, nor boundaries, for any simplistic representation to work. | ||
Modern administration is not performative in the sense of being ''fictional'', but irresponsibly ''lazy'': the [[modernist]] disposition is to see calamity as a function of low-level human foible: as ''operator error''. If the errors, inconstancies and | Modern administration is not performative in the sense of being ''fictional'', but irresponsibly ''lazy'': the [[modernist]] disposition is to see calamity as a function of low-level human foible: as ''operator error''. If the errors, inconstancies and misapprehensions of human frailty could only be excised, then orderly good governance would surely follow. Thus; administrators are never to blame: it’s the [[meatware]]. But then, why pay the big bucks to middle managers? Administration is easy: you just have to weed out the bad apples. If you don’t you’ve failed; if you do, your administrative role is reduced to one of [[human resources]].<ref>Thinks: ''waaaaaaaait a minute.''</ref> | ||
The contrary view is this: administration is ''hard''. Avoiding [[system accidents]], designing processes and products; aligning incentives, reacting to subtle, and sudden, shifts in the business environment; fixing conflicts of interest: these are ongoing tasks that need constant, on | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 13:04, 27 February 2021
|
“I define performative governance as the state’s theatrical deployment of visual, verbal, and gestural symbols to foster an impression of good governance before an audience of citizens”
- —Iza Ding[1]
“What a useful thing a pocket-map is!” I remarked.
“That’s another thing we’ve learned from your Nation,” said Mein Herr, “map-making. But we’ve carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really useful?”
“About six inches to the mile.”
“Only six inches!” exclaimed Mein Herr. “We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!”
“Have you used it much?” I enquired.
“It has never been spread out, yet,” said Mein Herr: “the farmers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well.”
- —Lewis Carroll, Sylvie and Bruno Concluded, (1895)
Just as well this kind of thing could never happen in a corporate environment.
“Performative” is a voguish word, and if the learned author thinks she’s discovered something new — that administrators manage second-order derivatives and proxies of their political problems rather than engaging in the political problems themselves — she would do herself a favour by reading James C. Scott, Jane Jacobs, W. Edwards Deming and others who have been articulating these ideas for seventy or more years — but since its fashionable, and since it is bang-on the money, let’s go with it.
With — perhaps — a spin. You perform governance, generally, by approximating it: creating crude, two-dimensional stick-figure illustrations of a four-dimensional[2]reality which is genuinely ineffable: with social systems there is never the necessary information, nor boundaries, for any simplistic representation to work.
Modern administration is not performative in the sense of being fictional, but irresponsibly lazy: the modernist disposition is to see calamity as a function of low-level human foible: as operator error. If the errors, inconstancies and misapprehensions of human frailty could only be excised, then orderly good governance would surely follow. Thus; administrators are never to blame: it’s the meatware. But then, why pay the big bucks to middle managers? Administration is easy: you just have to weed out the bad apples. If you don’t you’ve failed; if you do, your administrative role is reduced to one of human resources.[3]
The contrary view is this: administration is hard. Avoiding system accidents, designing processes and products; aligning incentives, reacting to subtle, and sudden, shifts in the business environment; fixing conflicts of interest: these are ongoing tasks that need constant, on
See also
References
- ↑ World Politics, Vol 72, Issue 4, October 2020, pp. 525 - 556. “Performative governance should be distinguished from other types of state behavior, such as inertia, paternalism, and the substantive satisfaction of citizens’ demands.”
- ↑ Yes: four, and I don’t even need to exceed Euclidean geometry to get there: governance propositions mutate over time.
- ↑ Thinks: waaaaaaaait a minute.