The performativity trap
This week I find myself at the annual conference for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. It’s my first time here, and I am enjoying the experience of being new. I’m not a planner, but the more I’ve come to know them the more I admire the discipline and the people in it.
The reason I am here is to present a paper co-written with a planning colleague. It’s called “Campus sustainability - moving beyond performative to authentic.” We are both concerned about sustainability in postsecondary education; from campus grounds and infrastructure, to academic programs. And we want to see real and committed action versus performative virtue-signaling. But while sustainability is certainly important, it’s not the only thing that’s been top of mind recently.
The idea of “performative” versus authentic or genuine action has really caught my attention. Especially lately. In the face of conflict or controversy I too often see university leadership shying away from genuine emotion, from what is gritty and real, in favour of what seem to be face-saving statements that fail to say or do much. This is a slippery slope, with universities running the risk of producing or endorsing what author Shelby Steele calls “iconographic policy” — policy that ostensibly exists to solve a social problem but actually functions as an icon for the self-image people hope to gain by supporting the policy (1).
I can’t help but wonder, is this inevitable? Is performativity always the end result for university executive leadership? A retreat to simplistic gestures? There is no denying the social and environmental challenges we face. The anger, frustration, and fear — coupled with world-wide violence — are serious and real. There is no easy answer, and no one single answer. If we try to please everyone we end up pleasing no one. What does authenticity in the face of this look like?
I think it looks like empathy and courage despite the inherent difficulty. One of the sessions at the conference was focused on climate justice. Two of the speakers emphasized three forms of justice in planning or policy development: 1) recognition (of harms and pain), 2) distributive (equity in impact and implementation), and 3) procedural (genuine inclusion in decision-making processes) (2).
All three are critical. But I am of the opinion that “recognition” is a necessary starting point for authentic action. True justice and equity require that we recognize and acknowledge past and potential future harms related to decisions we’ve made or actions we’ve taken. However — while recognition is necessary — it is not sufficient to ensure authentic speech and action.
For that, we also need courage. We need the willingness to do the right things, for the right reasons, even when it is hard. This may mean listening to what is under the shouted words or the upraised fists. It may mean hearing the frustration that comes from too many broken promises. It may mean recognizing the fear and pain that drives aggressive action. And it also absolutely means bringing our best selves, our most generous selves, our most committed selves into the dialogue, with determination to hold space for all the truths.
That to me is authenticity – the way out of the performativity trap. It is the courage to care, the willingness to wrestle with complexity, and the commitment to move relentlessly toward outcomes that matter.
(1) Tampa Bay Times https://www.tampabay.com › archive › 1995/03/02
(2) Journal of the American Planning Association 2022 | Volume 88 Number 4 DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.201330