A new middle-class fraction with a distinct subjectivity: Tech workers and the transformation of the entrepreneurial self

Critical Analysis

A neoliberal perspective of the entrepreneurial self attempts to explain social behavior entirely in language related to market forces. A post-neoliberal perspective of creative and technology workers challenges portions of this argument, as these workers embrace the entrepreneurial qualities of work, yet temper them with discourse of social responsibility and a commitment to righting perceived inequalities. The author argues that a comprehensive entrepreneurial explanation “seems out of date” as tech workers “show contours of a post-neoliberal subjectivity… tech workers still cherish flexibility, creativity and self-actualization, but they also cultivate a critique of economic inequality, a concern for diversity, an ethic of mindfulness, and a lifestyle that values ordinariness” (I303). This is claimed to be a transfiguration, but not a complete rejection of a self formed of self-advocacy and a celebration of entrepreneurialism.

An accepted view of an entrepreneurial self is “an employee who behaves like an entrepreneur in many ways” (I305). This self “longs for autonomy… feels more at home working on temporary projects… dislikes the idea of being a cog in a corporate machine” and “is on a journey to find meaning, singularity and creativity within work” (I305). This bears striking resemblance to the qualities fostered in design students: an encouragement to be self-sufficient in the face of a challenging, ill-defined problem, and to develop a personal sense of authorship and creative process that is meaningful. This perspective creates “new exclusionary mechanisms through ambiguity about roles, tasks, hierarchies and skills” (I306), yet this is presented to students as an ideal, not a problem: a designer is fluid and able to take on a broad set of challenges, and with the right skills, a designer can do anything.

The author’s study with tech workers—including UX designers—challenges the uniformity of this perspective, as, while it highlights the emphasis on creative autonomy and self-sufficiency in the face of projects, it also identifies a “critique of economic inequality and the critique of racial and gender inequality” (I309); these workers present as entrepreneurial, yet offer non-market-driven social ideals. The author explicitly challenges the “one-sided diagnosis of an intensification of market orientations” and cites Irani’s research that identifies a meaningful, deep passion for political and social purpose. This, the author claims, “marks a new culture of subjectivation when compared with the critical attitudes of the entrepreneurial self” (I312).

When considering design studio as a place of creative identity construction, the emphasis on a cohort model and a communal sense of belonging illustrates this tension. Students and instructors describe the emphasis on and importance of self-sufficiency, yet instructors in particular claim efforts in establishing a supportive, safe environment where students care about one-another and ideas are free. This may be explained in a number of ways.

One is through a conflicted instructor, who is in a position of authority to structure the learning environment in a particular way. These instructors themselves are subjects of entrepreneurism, yet are also informed by a rich cultural history of design as a socially-rich endeavor.

Another explanation is that studio represents an additional fracture, one that represents a changing cultural set of expectations pertaining to creative work. This, like the argument presented by the author, explains a new type of subjectivation that calls into question strict market-facing ideals.

Another argument is one of community-building as just another preparation for industry, where teamwork is expected as a fundamental part of activity expected in what is presented as an entrepreneurial endeavor. If designers feel like risk-takers and rule-breakers in a large organization, they must still participate in the confines of that organization: to get anything done, they must find ways to hide portions of their entrepreneurial self and present a face of concern for communal equity.

If there is a real conflicted presentation of these ideals in studio, it’s likely confusing to students, and they must navigate an emergent sense of self that is pulled in multiple directions.

The author’s argument “demonstrated that tech workers show contours of post-neoliberal subjectivity” (I316), and this offers an explanation for the tensions between entrepreneurism and collaboration found in a design studio.