The sublime object of entrepreneurship (original) (raw)
Related papers
Amfiteatru Economic, 2015
Mature capitalism and market economy realities become intelligible also by scrutinizing their “prodigal children”: modern business corporations. But these are not some undivided entities. Beyond the place in the global division of labour, they are fiefs of in-built specialization among the corporate governance stakeholders, each of them representing individual-based aggregations of pure catallactic functions. With an atomized, anonymous, asymmetrical and amalgamated ownership in a globalized capital market, with the multi-level directorship, delegated to harmonize profit-orientated investment interests, with creditors, but also with other suppliers of factors of production, modern corporations seem to have overshadowed both the real entrepreneurs-actors as well as the pure corresponding function. Our article is a (praxeo)logical exercise to pinpoint and reveal the realistic field of definition of the “entrepreneurship function” within the modern corporate spectrum, delimiting and po...
Cadernos Ebape, 2022
This essay investigates the displacement of the capitalist spirit to the ideology of entrepreneurship through a historical-materialist approach, aiming to apprehend reality from its ontogenetic contradictions and in its social development. This is a theoretical essay beginning from the gap in "critical approaches to entrepreneurship", contributing to deepen criticism of entrepreneurial practice, situating it before the stage of development of the productive forces in its historical path, and not only limited to capitalist realism that delimits human action by individualist, competitive, or even liberal acting. We emphasize that the spirit of capitalism corresponds to the movement of capital expansion while entrepreneurship is the ideological version of that spirit today, needing a system of ideas that puts it in motion, given its effectiveness as a means for subordination and impoverishment.
L'ABÉCÉDAIRE CRITIQUE EN ENTREPRENEURIAT / CRITICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ABC PRIMER
The word 'identity', 2021
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Académie de l'Entrepreneuriat et de l'Innovation. © Académie de l'Entrepreneuriat et de l'Innovation. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.
The abject of entrepreneurship: Failure, fiasco, fraud
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 2014
Purpose -Failure as an integral part of the entrepreneurial process has recently become a hot topic. The purpose of this paper is to review this debate as expressed both in research on entrepreneurship and in the public discourse, in order to understand what kind of failure is being incorporated into the entrepreneurship discourse and what is being repressed. Design/methodology/approach -The research design is twofold: an empirical investigation modelled as a discourse analysis is followed by a psychoanalytically inspired deconstruction of the identified hegemony. Where the discourse analysis treats what is omitted, the purpose of the psychoanalytic analysis is to point out more concretely what is being repressed from the hegemonic discourses that the first part of the paper identified.
Entrepreneurship in search of its foundations
in the fields of social science, economics, sociology or management are incomplete to understand and analyze the essence, aims and functions of entrepreneurship ; they tend to focus on one facet of entrepreneurial behaviour with regard to their predominant concern : for the economists : market and equilibrium, social production of the entrepreneur, profitable development of the activity ; for the sociologists, the influence of social norms, cultural values and structures. Collectively, however, much progress has been made. Our position, in this article, is that the problem of entrepreneurship is part of a broader theory of the firm, based on an epistemology of collective action (Hatchuel, 2005). According to Hatchuel, in this general theory of collective action, the foundation stone of what an enterprise really is, should be the major issue and result of management sciences, and not of sociology or economics which deal with restricted interpretations of collective action. In this perspective, a collective action theory requires combining two main dimensions : the design and the regulation of action. In this purpose, we propose to articulate the artificialist perspective defended by Herbert Simon in the 1960s with the Sciences of Design and the regulationist approach or rule-based approach from Jean-Daniel Reynaud in his social regulation theory. Through this position this article searchs to open a dialogue between the social sciences by introducing a Project-Based View (PBV).
The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship
2014
entrepreneurship creates actual value potential for users to act upon. This act on the part of the user can be a purchase decision. Such an act makes the user (of this potential) into a consumer. The offer-what is there to consume-is the value potential. The decision to purchase means the value of the offer is greater (to the user) than the price at which it can be purchased. An mp3 player, when it first appeared, represented a value offer for a user. Economists interpret the act to purchase it for, say, $200 as the result of an economic decision: my ownership and use of the mp3 player is worth more to me than the price at which it is offered. We all know the economic basis for a purchase decision is but one of many, where aesthetic, social, political and psychological grounds often are of greater importance for explaining the decision to buy. The point here is simply to exemplify entrepreneurship as this social creation process that rigs action in fictional anticipation of actual actionable value potential. For this we have suggested that fabulation (narratively performed imagination; Hjorth 2013) and organization creation (Gartner 2012; Hjorth 2010, 2012a, 2012b) are central. Seeing entrepreneurship as part of the central forces shaping society also makes its philosophy important as it provides concepts for how to reflexively think about this entrepreneurship-society relationship. How is actionable value potential actualized then? Actualization, which has no resemblance to actual models, progresses via differentiation-it creates an original organizational coherence in which new value in turn can be actualized (Hardt 1993). This is creation as no order stands model. This is also why it is driven by fictional anticipation-imagination has to provide the images of what could become actual. We are not yet in the realm of economy here, where we find concepts like risk, uncertainty (Knight 1921) and ambiguity (the latter already at the border of economic thought). Rather, this is thinking's groping after what is not yet there, a becoming sensible of thought. Imagination, Massumi suggests (2002a: 134) can also be called intuition (philosophical intuition concerns that for which there are no facts as yet available; Hofmann 2010), or a feeling of thought groping after the un-thought, a movement in the freedom of the postinstrumental and preoperative. 1 This is where we find entrepreneurship's white canvas (Hjorth 2003), its entre-space (Steyaert 2000) and its space for play (Hjorth 2005). This is thus another way in which we arrive at thinking's challenge in entrepreneurship studies: our study centres on how action is rigged, through social processes of organization creation, in fictional anticipation of actual actionable value potential. There are connections to Kirznerian alertness (if we think this upstream into imagination or intuition) and Shackle (see Popp and Holt 2013) who, when rethinking economy and history, stress inceptive thought, a concept that comes close to what we have described above as fictional anticipation. 2 Philosophy shares this interest with us, and we have much to learn from this 'partnership'.
Purpose – Failure as an integral part of the entrepreneurial process has recently become a hot topic. The purpose of this paper is to review this debate as expressed both in research on entrepreneurship and in the public discourse, in order to understand what kind of failure is being incorporated into the entrepreneurship discourse and what is being repressed. Design/methodology/approach – The research design is twofold: an empirical investigation modelled as a discourse analysis is followed by a psychoanalytically inspired deconstruction of the identified hegemony. Where the discourse analysis treats what is omitted, the purpose of the psychoanalytic analysis is to point out more concretely what is being repressed from the hegemonic discourses that the first part of the paper identified. Findings – The paper identifies a discursive shift from focusing on entrepreneurial success while at the same time negating failure, to embracing failure as a “learning experience”. Second, we trace this “fail better”-movement and identify a distinction between the “good failure” from which the entrepreneur learns, and the “bad failure” which may also imply a moral breakdown. Finally, the paper attempts to deconstruct this discourse deploying Kristeva's idea of the abject. The paper argues that the entrepreneurship discourse seeks closure through abjecting its own, real kernel, namely: the everyday, common, entrepreneurial failure. This image comprises the abject of entrepreneurship, and abject which does becomes visible, however, rarely: Bernie Madoff, Jeff Skilling, Stein Bagger. Originality/value – This paper fulfils an identified need to study the darker and unwanted sides of entrepreneurship and extends our understanding of failure in entrepreneurial processes.