Entrepreneurialism: conceptual exploration of an ideology

Critical Analysis

Entrepreneurism is often discussed in the context of neoliberalism, either casting it as an offshoot and subset of the larger topic, or using the two words and ideas interchangeably and treating them as synonymous. In this text, the authors argue that entrepreneurialism is distinct, and has its own distinct shape and logic. As a result, it should be examined separately and more thoroughly than it has been in the past. The authors offer a definition of entrepreneurialism: it is “an ideology that extends entrepreneurial logic into social life, directing aspirations and actions towards the relentless pursuit of entrepreneurial ideals” (7).

Entrepreneurship is a societal force that shapes how people reason, act, and organize; being entrepreneurial means “reinventing societal structures through creativity and innovation” (2), and is often cast as a personal and isolated activity. This is the main relationship that is drawn between entrepreneurship and neoliberalism: an emphasis is placed on a lone individual, continually working in support of their own success. These views can be seen as reactionary, and “as traditional societal structures erode and uncertainty about work and economic security grows, entrepreneurialism frames this instability as an opportunity for reinvention and creative problem-solving” (5).

This is intimately related to a view of design, and a designer, who has a creative spirit and skills to see things that others miss and to capitalize on those gaps through problem solving. Emphasis in studio is on learning to reconsider a societal-something that has been viewed as fixed, and to not only observe the phenomenon but also to try to fix or optimize it. But because this is continual, the authors argue that it is “open-ended striving” and “individuals never fully ‘arrive’ at their entrepreneurial potential (5). This causes anxiety, and even “generates despair” (5).

The authors describe four qualities of entrepreneurialism, each of which has a clear manifestation in studio culture and in the formation of a designerly identity. First, being described as entrepreneurial is selectively empowering: it “elevates actors who display autonomy, risk-taking, and resilience, while marginalizing those who do not conform to these traits” (6). Critique manifests this, for example celebrating—publicly—often ill-defined qualities of risk-taking. In this way, entrepreneurialism positions success as an individual achievement. Being a good designer-as-entrepreneur is based on a personal set of skills, qualities, and adaptability, and failure is a deficiency.

Being an innovator and a risk-taker are qualities that persist, and so “entrepreneurial subjects are expected to be always improving, always becoming” (7). Being innovative is not an end-state. It is a way of living and experiencing the world. Some view entrepreneurialism as a positive but disruptive force. Things that already exist block progress, particularly institutions, regulations, and traditions. This, again, adds a “pressure for constant invention” (7).

The authors conclude by re-asserting the distinctions between entrepreneurialism and neoliberalism: “entrepreneurialism understands the self as a flexible entrepreneurial project that can never be realized and thus remains eternally in formation… to the entrepreneur, the sense of entrepreneurialism turns the world into creative material that submits to the entrepreneurial will” (13). These are qualities that may overlap with neoliberalism, but manifest differently when viewed outside of a strict view of the market; they emphasize the ongoing challenges of forming a creative self.