her activities. They range from very productive performatism to useless but mostly inert lip service
You seem to be using the word performatism in both senses of it’s meaning, as performative has become a contranym. Here you are contrasting it to “inert lip service” as opposed to your earlier comment that implied the opposite meaning:
what she does is performative and doesn’t really accomplish much
Putting the confusing nature of your comments aside, I do think it’s worth highlighting very clearly that - as you yourself pointed out - performative action can be quite useful in the original sociological sense of the word. It means bringing something into being through speech/action, which is the polar opposite of “inert lip service”.
Many of Thunberg’s actions have inspired and informed others precisely because they include a performative aspect (in the sociological sense), and she doesn’t do anything that is “inert lip service” as far as I am aware. In fact, based on interviews I’ve seen of her, I suspect that “inert lip service” is incredibly annoying to her as well.
Perhaps this is an issue of grammar. I use the word “performative” to describe actions where more effort is paid to the publication of the process of performing the actions, rather than any effect of the actions themselves.
And, of course, I do think that being performative does not on its own make a behaviour socially useless. That’s why I distinguish between “useful performatism” and “useless performatism”, which is typically just done with the goal of generating the feeling of having done something, without actually making any significant effect.
As another example, most peaceful protests are inherently performative, but they can be usefully so if they actually provoke positive policy changes.
And of course, by “lip service”, I mean speeches and declarations which merely talk about the existence of an issue and one’s support/opposition of it without actually taking any concrete action towards achieving one’s stated goal. For example (though not Thunberg-related), I consider a city council resolution condemning Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine to be a form of useless lip service, unless it is paired with actual actions in furtherance of that view, such as sending aid to Palestine or cutting ties with Israeli companies.
US presidents ordering flags flown at half-mast after mass shootings without offering substantial policy changes is a notorious example of useless lip service.
You seem to be using the word performatism in both senses of it’s meaning, as performative has become a contranym. Here you are contrasting it to “inert lip service” as opposed to your earlier comment that implied the opposite meaning:
Putting the confusing nature of your comments aside, I do think it’s worth highlighting very clearly that - as you yourself pointed out - performative action can be quite useful in the original sociological sense of the word. It means bringing something into being through speech/action, which is the polar opposite of “inert lip service”.
Many of Thunberg’s actions have inspired and informed others precisely because they include a performative aspect (in the sociological sense), and she doesn’t do anything that is “inert lip service” as far as I am aware. In fact, based on interviews I’ve seen of her, I suspect that “inert lip service” is incredibly annoying to her as well.
Perhaps this is an issue of grammar. I use the word “performative” to describe actions where more effort is paid to the publication of the process of performing the actions, rather than any effect of the actions themselves.
And, of course, I do think that being performative does not on its own make a behaviour socially useless. That’s why I distinguish between “useful performatism” and “useless performatism”, which is typically just done with the goal of generating the feeling of having done something, without actually making any significant effect.
As another example, most peaceful protests are inherently performative, but they can be usefully so if they actually provoke positive policy changes.
And of course, by “lip service”, I mean speeches and declarations which merely talk about the existence of an issue and one’s support/opposition of it without actually taking any concrete action towards achieving one’s stated goal. For example (though not Thunberg-related), I consider a city council resolution condemning Israeli atrocities in occupied Palestine to be a form of useless lip service, unless it is paired with actual actions in furtherance of that view, such as sending aid to Palestine or cutting ties with Israeli companies.
US presidents ordering flags flown at half-mast after mass shootings without offering substantial policy changes is a notorious example of useless lip service.