The turn to performativity and the democratic concern : four orientations for a more demos-sensitive debate

A new turn has come; a performativity turn, which has started to rattle organizational studies. As the debate is still unfolding, there are many views on performativity and there are multiple performativities (MacKenzie and al., 2007); there is no agreement on what ‘performativity' really means. But it seems, first, that many scholars see a division between those who know how organizations should be run and others who do not. And the scholars try to influence those others who do not know, and who supposedly should be made to perform in accordance with expert prescriptions. Second, performativity supposedly operates across a sharp divide of two separate worlds, that of actants and that of the acted upon. Third, performativity is supposed to influence behaviours and thoughts, and its effect on subjectivities is downplayed. Thanks to its focus on cognitive and material devices, affects and affectivity are only given a minor role. And fourth, much of the performative effects may not be a result at all of intended influences, but result from what could be seen as parasitism and ghostly presence. The turn to performativity demands an ethical urge to reflect on the effects that our words actually have on practice. Starting with performativity as impact factor and as performance, will be presented elements of the debate in regards to the four preceding loci, using ideas from Jacques Rancière, Kathleen Stewart, Judith Butler and Jacques Derrida.