The Psychic Life of Neoliberalism: Mapping the Contours of Entrepreneurial Subjectivity

Critical Analysis

In this text, the author presents a view of the “psychic” qualities of entrepreneurial subjectivity; psychic, in this case, referring to the “formation of subjectivities in and through power” (111), gesturing to the “ways in which entrepreneurial subjectivities constitute themselves in and through discourse” (111). The findings of the study indicate that “entrepreneurial subjects relate to themselves as if they were a business, are active, embrace risks, capably manage difficulties and hide injuries… social critique is transformed into self-critique, resulting in a prevalence of self-doubt and anxiety… entrepreneurial subjects compete with the self, and not just with others” (108).

These qualities overlap extremely closely with qualities of a designerly-self, particularly the designerly-self constructed as both faculty and students speak of the role of design education. With the exception of self-talk as a business, the construction and presentation of a designerly self touches on each of the other attributes. Students and faculty emphasize the active nature of designing: making things requires self-directed motivation. The author sees a focus on activity as relate to the “neoliberal philosophy of time where being idle is to be avoided” (111), which aligns directly with a chronopolitical argument for studio as clock-time. Instructors and students both speak of a negative sentiment towards laziness, and the author explains that “the drawing of boundaries and disdain for laziness can be seen as constitutive of entrepreneurial subjectivity” (118).

“Being a risk taker” is a common and prevalent theme in designer discourse, and the author, quoting Gershon, indicates that a neoliberal argument demands one engage with risk. This is also enacted in descriptions of managing the complexities and difficulties of problems in a design context. More complex problems are held with high regard, as is the solving of them. Self-doubt underscores a great deal of studio-identity talk, and students continually describe themselves as doing the best they can, and feeling like that isn’t enough. An entrepreneurial self is argued to be in competition with others, but the author sees her research participants competing with themselves: “competition may also be self-directed under neoliberalism” (117). Quoting Petersen and O’Flynn, the author explains that “[t]he only person with whom one competes is oneself” and so the “competition may also be turned inwards” (118).

The toil of studio supports the argument that an entrepreneurial self “constructs the subjects in question as capable managers of their lives. Even though they encountered difficulties, they survived them” (114), much like one speaks of surviving an educational critique or late-night project. The author notes this theme in research, evidenced through the “prevalence of survivor discourses” (114). In an entrepreneurial construct, success and failure is personal, and “the entrepreneurial self only has itself to blame if something goes wrong” (115).

These entrepreneurial qualities are argued to be fundamentally about neoliberalism, but extended to all forms of contact including social activities on a personal level. This impacts daily life, and “conducting its life as enterprise, the enterprising self is bound by specific rules that emphasize ambition, calculation, accountability and personal responsibility” (109).

Instructors and students continually reference the collaborative, supportive community of studio, and this appears in contrast to an entrepreneurial subject pursuing creative self-sufficiency and self-interest. One read of this is what the author describes as a required negotiation of competitive discourses; “entrepreneurial discourses intersect with other discourses, such as discourses around artistic labour” (115). This requires additional negotiation on behalf of the subject; for a student, this discontinuity likely causes confusion. Another read of this is that instructors feel reluctance to fully embrace an entrepreneurial narrative, and their own inconsistent talk represent a meaningful, unresolved struggle of how creativity is best taught and learned.