Many also recall instances when they spoke up against injustice-called out a bully on the playground, for example, or pointed out a racial stereotype inadvertently used by a teacher-and discovered that they could make a differ-ence.

In particular, certain types of experiences seem to help people, especially children, discover their agency. Many social entrepreneurs can recall a time in childhood when they were actively encouraged by an adult to take initiative-to start a club or organize a league, for example-and then assisted in the process. The achievement taught them to value and act on their own ideas.

of behavior they adopt.

Entrepreneurs tend to be good listeners. They must be able to identify with others so they can understand their motiva-tions and bring them together into effective teams. Andrew Carnegie said that entrepreneurs must be willing to endure the "humbling eclipse of self" that comes from "profound learning from others." They tend to be open-minded and on the lookout for useful information.

If they don't have the skills to solve a problem, they believe they can acquire them by experi-menting, by observing experts, or by getting help from others. When things go wrong, they want to know primarily what happened-and what needs to be fixed, not whom to blame. They don't take failure as an indication of personal inad-equacy but as an indication of a gap in their understanding, something that can be remedied with more effort.

t's important to reemphasize that social entrepre-neurship is a process

t can't work if there is insuf-ficient space for experimentation or if people are unwilling to talk about failure.

All of them share some basic temperamental qualities. For example, entrepreneurs are comfortable with uncertainty, have a high need for autonomy, and are biased toward action. However, entrepreneurs are not necessarily highly charis-matic or confident. Research indicates that their success is less a function of inborn personality traits than the patterns

Many extraordinary people work closely with social entrepreneurs for years without receiving public recognition, including many "intrapreneurs," who drive considerable innovation within their organizations.

To orchestrate positive long-term changes, we need people who think beyond quarterly reports and news and election cycles, and who persist in the absence of short-term rewards or recognition.

The job can be boiled down to one essential function: the social entrepreneur helps others to envision a new possibility, appreciate its meaning, and recognize how it can be broken down into doable steps that build momentum for change.

Social entrepreneurs have to figure out how to make it happen

The system changer must therefore overcome apathy, habit, incomprehension, and disbelief while facing heated resistance

The role of the social entrepreneur can be understood through these examples. Social entrepreneurs initiate and lead change processes that are self-correcting, growth-oriented, and impact-focused. They create new configurations of people and coordinate their efforts to attack problems more successfully than before. It's a complex role that involves a great deal of listening, recruiting, and persuading. It takes a curious combination of sensitivity and bullheadedness, humility and audacity, and restlessness and patience to lead a change process in the face of indifference, habit, fear, resource constraints, vested interest, and institutional defenses

Social entrepreneurs must attract attention and funding, overcome apathy and opposition, shift behavior and mobilize political will, continually improve the idea, and take care of all the details in painstaking fashion, no matter how long it takes.

From the perspective of an entrepreneur, it makes no sense to talk about an idea without talking about the details of implementation

In their article "Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition," Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg argue that the role of the social entrepreneur is to move society from a "stable but inherently unjust equi-librium" to a "new, stable equilibrium" that releases potential and alleviates suffering on a major scale. Social entrepreneurs work to ensure that sensible ideas take root and actually change people's thinking and behavior across a society.

Americans are worried that their banking, health, education, and criminal justice systems are profoundly inadequate for today's challenges. Few disagree about the need for reform, yet many insiders battle to defend the status quo.

these entrepreneurs had enormous potential to lead change efforts, but they were hobbled by many factors: they didn't have much money; they were misunderstood by their families and friends; and they often felt vulnerable and insignificant, isolated from one another and largely ignored by the media, the business sector, and the government.

the organizations that were making a difference had both a good idea and an unusually committed, creative, and action-oriented person at the helm: an idea champion or entrepreneur.

Microfinance, an idea that was treated as a crazy experiment twenty-five years ago, is now a global industry.

Grameen and BRAC reached national scale in Bangladesh, each employing tens of thousands of staff members whose work touched the lives of tens of millions of Bangladeshis in almost every one of the nation's seventy thousand villages. Like great businesses, as they grew, they improved, adding new services, using technology more effectively, and spawning imitations. They built cultures of pride and optimism.

Rather than implement preset poli-cies through bureaucracies in a top-down fashion, they grew solutions from the bottom in a process characterized by trial and error, continuous iteration, and a sharp focus on results.

The conventional practice at the time was for development assistance to flow directly from governments of wealthy countries to governments of poor countries, and from the top to the bottom through local government channels.

if an idea or program failed, they could shut it down, absorb the lesson, and try something else. And many failures did ensue; some even grew into crises. But they used the failures as opportunities to think deeper about how to solve the country's problems.

To develop solutions, they experimented continuously

People seeking solutions are no longer willing to wait for governments, corporations, churches, or universi-ties to lead.

two ground breaking examples of social entrepreneurship occurred in one of the poorest countries in the world: Bangladesh

Grameen and BRAC operated under the presumption that Bangladeshis were capable, and they sought to build capacity and self-reliance within the country. They focused not just on material poverty but on dignity, eschewing charity in favor of respectful transactions.

Governments conspicuously failed to stand up to busi-ness interests when it came to safeguarding the environment, protecting human rights, ensuring access to health care and decent working conditions, and regulating financial institu-tions.

Urbaniza-tion has coincided with the growth of large middle classes in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. And because members of this class enjoy access to education, wealth, and political power yet remain less vested in historic systems of privilege, they often become highly effective social entrepreneurs.

Whether it's the environmental threat, infec-tious diseases, global terrorism, or economic crises, we have little time to fix things when they go awry; nor can we address problems chiefly in a centralized manner. Solutions must be decentralized and integrated and deployed in real time.

Let's put it all together now.

at the end of the eighteenth century, well over three-quarters of all people were living in slavery or serfdom. Of those not enslaved, the majority were forced to submit to the rule of kings or dictators, locked into immutable traditions that did not permit dissent, or consigned to short lives characterized by crushing poverty, disease, and violence.

The biggest driver of change has been the women's move-ment

Increasingly, people in rural areas and slums possess the skills, resources, and confidence to create businesses and other organizations.

For change to happen, new institutions and new spheres of power would need to be created.

It was during this period, the Progressive Age, that enlightened philanthro-pists began experimenting with "scientific charity," which aimed to transform the conditions that produced poverty, not just to provide comfort to the poor and ease the consciences of the rich.

many new prob-lems, including population displacement, the decimation of traditional cultures, abusive labor practices, environmental disasters, and the exploitative pursuit of cheap minerals and energy source

The rush of citizen activity that Americans experienced a century ago when faced with a profound and painful transi-tion is analogous to today's global changes.

What was the effect of the emergence of business entrepre-neurship? The economist William J. Baumol has noted that during the 1700s, per-capita incomes in Europe are estimated to have risen 20 or 30 percent; during the 18oos, they rose 200 to 300 percent. And during the 1900s, the conservative estimate is that per-capita income in economies increased 700 percent.

Citizens regu-larly challenge power and convention in countries where, thirty or forty years ago, they might have been "disappeared," "banned," or imprisoned for doing so.

During the twentieth century, largely owing to improvements in sanita-tion, the advent of antibiotics, and advances in plant genetics (which led to the Green Revolution), life expectancy soared from 25 to 63 in the developing world and from 45 to 75 in the developed world.

entrepreneurs improve the productive capacity of society and provide the "creative destruction" that propels economic change

the dismal science, economics,

a new sector of society-a private sector-in which individuals could reorganize the patterns of production in order to capture the benefits of their enterprise.

The rise of modern business created new wealth (large middle classes), new comforts (washing machines, electric lights, faster transportation), new patterns of living (40-hour workweeks, vacation time, retirement)

Corporations have grown immensely powerful. Three hundred multinational corporations control roughly a quarter of the world's wealth. Their managers frequently make deci-sions that run counter to the long-term interests of the public and even their own shareholders, as the recent financial crisis has illustrated.

By demonstrating how entrepreneurial qualities can be channeled to address major problems, it has opened up new pathways of behavior and methods of analysis for people who are motivated by a desire to solve those problems.

in seventeenth-century France button makers were arrested for experimenting with cloth, and thousands. of merchants were sent to the galleys, broken on the wheel, and hanged simply because they imported printed calicoes for sale.

A careful reader of history could identify the hidden hand of social entrepreneurs in the creation of many institutions and movements that we take for granted.

Social entrepreneurs have always existed. But in the past they were called visionaries, humanitarians, philanthropists, reformers, saints, or simply great leaders

Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition, the term has proved useful because it builds on long-held understandings about entrepreneurs but applies them in new ways.

create public value, pursue new opportunities, innovate and adapt, act boldly, leverage resources they don't controC and exhibit a strong sense of accountability.

Social entrepreneurship is a process by which citizens build or transform institutions to advance solutions to social prob-lems, such as poverty, illness, illiteracy, environmental destruc-tion, human rights abuses and corruption, in order to make life better for many

creating new combinations of people and resources that significantly improve society's capacity to address problems.

he is familiar, but novel; within our grasp, butjust out of reach

the American dream is now reserved forwealthy capitalists and even the corporation-as-person

On one hand, entrepreneurialman appeals to the individualist, progress-focused, ‘‘everyman’’ aspects of deeply-rooted American dream ideology. Yet, influenced by neoliberal appeals to individu-alism and wealth creation, entrepreneurial man also represents an elite, privilegedsensibility.

Do organization (wo)men still exist, and how dothey interpret or give meaning to the entrepreneurial man archetype?

Under personal capitalism, a philanthropic mindset was intendedto be an everyday aspect of being self made. Under entrepreneurial capitalism,philanthropy is a large-scale, global phenomenon undertaken once an entrepreneurhas already achieved great wealth

The American dream has become alarmingly out ofreach for those who are already disadvantaged; or the (entrepreneurial) Americandream is just as available, if not more so, than it ever was.

the rule*according to the business periodicals*is that entrepreneursare inherently ethical and valuable societal members, because they are bringingneoliberal individualism to life

This paper argues that the power of entrepreneurialism lays in its ability to meshneoliberal and historical ideologies of individualism to form the entrepreneurial manarchetype

rejecting the conformity encouragedunder managerial capitalism yet retaining the organization man’s patriarchalheternormativity

At the end of the day, the selfmade archetype aligns entrepreneurial man with the responsibility and instinctualdecision making of personal capitalism

Instead of challenginghegemonic masculinity, the consumerist heterosexuality of masculinity remainssalient

the entrepreneurial man archetype recalls the rugged, adventuresomemasculinity of the self made man and rejects the conformity, but not the patriarchy,of the organization man.

Yet, in the second entwining of theself made, organization, and entrepreneurial archetypes, the potential for ethicalcritique of the entrepreneurial man is assuaged by appeals to the rational sensibility ofthe organization man.

this study highlights that neoliberal entrepreneurialism signals a revival ofpersonal capitalism, though without the implied social contract. In moving beyondmanagerial capitalism, neoliberal entrepreneurialism actually hearkens back to acapitalist economy characterized by inward-focused intuition and decision making

entrepreneurial man rejects self made man’simplicit social contract where, in exchange for an opportunity to advance, thehumble young man would become a responsible member of society.

being labeled the ‘‘right kind’’ of entrepreneur(i.e., masculine, technological, innovative, wealth-generating) automatically char-acterizes one as an upstanding citizen

the entrepreneurial man archetype emerges within the contemporaryeconomic milieu of entrepreneurial capitalism, where innovation, technology, andwealth creation signal successful entrepreneurship

Part of the allure of the entrepreneurial man and entrepreneurial capi-talism lays in this selective mobilization/rejection of previous archetypes

entrepreneurs were describedas individuals who possessed traditional qualities of hegemonic masculinity(Kimmell, 1997) such as strength and adventurousness, rationality and emotionalcontrol, and a public and patriarchal persona.4 Entrepreneurs were, for instance,described in terms symbolizing war and sports.

The depiction of entrepreneurs as masculine in traditional as well as alternativeways surfaces neoliberal entrepreneurialism as advancing what we might call a ‘‘newold’’ masculinity*one that constructs the entrepreneur as adventuresome along thelines of the self made man, but as ‘‘safe’’ along the lines of the paternal,heternormative organization man

As culture and institutions have shifted,the ideology of the American dream has also begun to be re-storied in the language ofprivatization. Here, the entrepreneurial man archetype models the ideal contempor-ary individual as someone who is in society but not of society, who is focused on self-interest in the form of personal wealth.

the self made man, organization man, and neoliberalideology as entwined within neoliberal entrepreneurialism

venture capitalists were the robberbarons, and entrepreneurs the ‘‘little guy’’ in the American dream story. Entrepre-neurial morality therefore became underscored by the notion that entrepreneurs arejust trying to do the ‘‘right thing.’

This paternalistic care extended to the‘‘public good’’ role that entrepreneurs supposedly enact in the economy

The entrepreneur origin story presents an ontological paradox: Entrepreneurs aresimultaneously ‘‘everyman’’ but are also unique.

Paternalism was mostobvious in how entrepreneurs were often linked to wives and children depicted asneeding stability, care, and protection

Even the masculinity of ‘‘failed’’ entrepreneurswas reassured because, like boxers, entrepreneurs ‘‘take a punch and then get up offthe canvas to win the fight.’’

Finally, a significant characteristic of entrepreneurs as represented in the businessperiodicals was that they were cast as unreservedly masculine

Such stories positioned the entrepreneur as hailing from humbleor difficult roots to work (usually) his way into success or as possessed with a uniqueand innate inclination for entrepreneurship that he purposefully fostered

entrepreneurswere positioned in opposition to venture capitalists, the individuals and groups whosefinancial sponsorship was named fundamental to entrepreneurial development.

Notably, the preferred path to innovation was found in technology

weare able to see the entrepreneur as couched within a seemingly ‘‘new’’ economicmilieu that indicates a preference for technologically innovative and elite forms ofentrepreneurship. Second, we can begin to see how these preferences hearken back tothe Industrial Revolution (e.g., reference to Thomas Edison) and therefore recall thearchetype of the self-made man

My interrogation of entrepreneurial discourse laysin my own fascination with entrepreneurs

s anew economy archetype, entrepreneurial man is a paradoxically unique everymanconstructed at the intersection of three multidimensional tropes: (1) entrepreneurialcapitalism, (2) ethical familiarity, and (3) traditional and alternative masculinity.

, entrepreneurship was predicated on the need for entrepreneursto continually generate profit

looking for patterns, inclusions/exclusions, and an understanding of context as related to power, control, andoppression.

entrepreneur in business discourse? What coherent image(s), if any, represents theidealized entrepreneur? and, How does this idealization compare to previousorganizational archetypes?

the periodicalsdepicted growth and profit as the essence of entrepreneurialism

A significant trope in the periodicals championed entrepreneurial capitalism byhighlighting entrepreneurs involved with wealth creation, innovation, and technol-ogy.

Gone were the assumptions of men as self-defining individualists, and insteadmen looked to replicate the paternalism that they received from the company

a secondtrope of entrepreneurial man is that he is rendered familiar and painted as inherentlytrustworthy, thereby evoking ethical assumptions associated with the American dream

The organization man archetype, made popular by Whyte’s (1956) critique,became a symbol for a different kind of American dream, characterized bycareerism and company loyalty. Rejecting the unpredictability of small and familybusiness, organization men sought definite tasks and working hours (Fraser, 2002),bankable promotions and raises, retirement pensions, and job security in exchangefor their loyalty (Erickson & Pierce, 2005). The organization man did not makewaves and was not overly ambitious, but rose up the ranks systematically, in themanner prescribed by the organization

The economic system of the self made man was that of personal capitalism

enthusiasm for technology, innovation, andindividualism that underpins entrepreneurial capitalism

This energetic Americandream implied that ‘‘through hard work, innate talent, and a little bit of pluck andluck, anyone can achieve anything’’

Throughthe blending of these qualities of character, this genre also promoted a rags-to-respectability mentality, although Alger’s stories are typically mis-remembered aspromoting rags-to-riches

entrepreneurial capitalism, where entrepreneurial endeavors represent monetarysuccess and moral fulfillment

The ability for an individual to ‘‘make something’’ of oneself in an ever-growing,connected society came to signify the ideology of the ‘American dream.’

neoliberal entrepreneurialism,scholarship in this area tends to assume that this ideology is fairly new

privatization and arejection of bureaucracy position the individual as the central agent in managing thesocioeconomic status of him/herself and others.

Scholars have observed thatentrepreneurs are expected to be ‘‘risk takers and perhaps ...daredevils’’ (Ahl,2004, p. 45) and to espouse a kind of aggression that is reflected in ‘‘a fast-paced,semi-fantasy life, detached playfulness, compulsion to work and succeed, manipula-tiveness, toughness and domination’

By comparing today’sarchetype with previous archetypes, we can understand how today’s entrepreneurmeshes characteristics from other archetypes with neoliberal individualism torender the archetype sensible

According to some, we have entered an era where ‘‘very ordinary people are the mainplayers

asthe archetype inspires awe, mystery, and romance, it is also ambiguous andunpredictable to the degree that it may manifest differently in various contexts.

The mid-twentieth century saw a shift away from self made, pioneer individualismand toward organizational conformity

The self made man and personal capitalism were idealized in the popular stories ofHoratio Alger, where being self made was associated with personal morality.

The economic milieu of this archetype was managerial capitalism.

archetypes represent idealistic images of whowe should or should not be (or aspire to be),

Unlike the individualism and manifest destiny located in Alger’s stories, theRockwellian hero celebrated consumer comfort and conformity, and located moralityin one’s becoming the proverbial cog in the machine.

The promise of stablework is no longer an expectation and careers are now understood as ‘‘boundaryless’

enterprise culture in organizations encouragesemployees to internalize the values of excellence and customer service, and tobecome an ‘‘entrepreneur of the self,’’ where the achievement of success is dictated byone’s consumerist, innovative, and youthful performance

The interest in entrepreneurship signals a sea change in the images of the‘‘organization man’’ that dominated much of the twentieth century. Characterizedby loyalty and conformity, the organization man looked to the paternalisticorganization for job security

I turnnow to identifying the archetype of the entrepreneurial man

we might similarlyconsider the entrepreneur as a transcendent identity construct

archetypes have been defined as symbols that are ‘‘commonly understood and possesssimilar meanings across diverse situations

entrepreneurialism presupposes the entrepreneur as White, masculine,and otherwise privileged, and marginalizes the involvement of women and minorityentrepreneurs (Ahl, 2004).

archetypes

Entrepreneurs do not have to work in an organization in order to be influenced byorganizational discourse.

the archetype has been defined as anatavistic, patterned, and universal symbolic image rooted in shared understandingsand representative of influential and desirable values and ideas.

To frame the study at hand, I first introduce archetypes as idealizedmanifestations of organizational identity. Second, I introduce the entrepreneurialman archetype as reflective of today’s new economy. Finally, I provide a historio-graphical overview of the self made and organization man archetypes before movingto a discussion of methods

entrepreneurialism today is not ahistorical butgains hegemonic influence by selectively drawing from previous individualistarchetypes.

To contextualize*and thereby texturize*neoliberal entrepreneurialism

he preference for theindividual in the development of capitalism, where the deemphasis on family andcommunity left individuals searching for leadership and meaning, for which theyturned to the authoritarian or managed state, including organizations.

shaping individualsinto enterprising selves

Examining the meshing of the self made, organization, and entrepreneurialarchetypes provides insight into how entrepreneurialism taps into already formedcultural ideologies so as to be compelling

seek to texturizeentrepreneurialism by tracing the evolution of individualist archetypes in the US

provide a tempered, nuanced understanding for the shift from organization man toentrepreneurial man.

entrepreneurship and neoliberalismare productively, and also problematically, entwined

‘boundaryless careers’

neoliberal ideology has fostered a cultof the individual that eschews a collective mindset and discounts collaborative orcommunity-centric practice. Instead, the private individual is idealized as the soleagent in her or his life and community

researchers have failed to understand en-trepreneurship as a struggle with failure

optimistic attachments theyhave to neoliberal ideals such as the promise of meritocracy and in-dividualism are unlikely to come to pass in their lives.

certain types of entrepreneurial en-deavor, especially that performed by YouTubers, encourages a self-centered subjectivity where individuals pursue their own self-interestby seeking popularity at all costs

Second, their creativity isconstrained by the conformism that the neoliberal logic of hyper-nor-mality tends to promulgate.

we found a worldquite different from the upbeat optimism of most literature on en-trepreneurial capitalism. While the, probably unwitting, circulation ofneoliberal ideals among participants in the ethnography has certainlybeen effective at making them more entrepreneurial, the impact ontheir personal lives is altogether less sanguine.

ven successfulentrepreneurs, who are as unwittingly influenced by neoliberal ideals asthe next person, are still plagued by psychological and emotional angst

First, they are obsessedwith their marketability and the performance of their quantifiableselves —especially when compared to their closest rivals.

This paper questions the assumptions underlying the standard ap-proach to entrepreneurial scholarship which privileges the all-con-quering agentic entrepreneur. Such an outlook requires researchers touncritically accept the unspoken, but nonetheless ever-present notion,that being entrepreneurial is inherently a noble and worthwhile pursuit

althoughthey may view themselves as subjects who have the experience ofchoosing freely, the impact of their entrepreneurial activity has threepernicious effects on the quality of their lives.

social media as suffering from “anaggressive egotism and neurasthenic passivity

we present a more nuancedview of entrepreneurial behavior, one that details not only the de-terminants of success, but also the quiet desperation, the self-doubt, thewaning ambition that can also constitute part of the entrepreneurialjourne

The real locus of power in this relatively new industry iswielded by agent intermediaries who work on behalf of vloggers, pre-senting, cultivating and packaging their clients for the big brand ad-vertisers. These intermediaries who we label inter-preneurs manage,govern and control the most marketable of the young YouTubers.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than thosewho falsely believe they are free”

being an autopreneur can result in a considerable bout of neuroticsoul-searchin

sense of straitjacketing

One might imagine that the continuous scramble for viewers andsubscribers would lead to an endless diversity of original and creativecontent.

Perhaps, as our research suggests, the autopreneurs –not to di-minish their photogenic talents and undoubted ability to speak to thecoveted and illusive millennial audience –are merely akin to attractivemannequin models in a shop window that are posed, controlled anddressed as others would like

All conform to a common criterion of beauty with onlysubtle deviations, a requisite tattoo here, a piercing there, all throwninto the mix as a nod to individuality.

Others are, even despite having an entrepreneurialmindset and obvious talent, less certain, and prone to bouts of despair.Like pan handlers who turn up too late at the gold rush, they under-stand that competition is extreme, and that finding success with theirvideo channel will be extremely difficult. They attribute a number offactors as responsible for this state of affairs. Some simply believe thatthey lack the ruthless egotism and self-confidence to make it big

subjectivity is being shaped by externalities beyond their control.

Technologies of the self

It's a delicate balance to somehow stand out, while remainingessentially on song with one's target audience

llustrating how orienting concepts from neo-liberal theory shape and govern how they think and act

The creativity dispositif

It is clear that people like David have deeply internalized the pro-mise of neoliberalism

he Dynamics of competition

Structure of feeling, drawnfrom Raymond Williams' theoretical repertoire, encapsulates the livedexperience of meaning and values. It is a totality of ideology, feelings,and emotions. It conveys the complexity and contradictory nature ofsocial experience, while maintaining that thoughts and feelings aresocially determined

The fetishization of ‘communicative capitalism’(Dean, 2009)championed by anyone with a social media presence where “socialworth is measured, in part, by the number of Facebook friends youhave, or by the number of re-tweets your last Twitter posting gained

various “operations on their ownbodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being that people makeeither by themselves or with the help of others in order to transformthemselves to reach a state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, orimmortality”

social platforms, theycan enable people to cultivate new selves

a woman may thinkit is entirely her natural choice ‘to erotically subjectify’herself, butundoubtedly technologies of the self also play an influential role in theprocess of subjectification

Creativity dispositif

Consider,for instance, the neoliberal ideal of what constitutes an enviable body.Stereotypically, it is toned, lean and exudes vitality and health; mus-cularly-tapered to the waist if you are man, or hour-glass-shaped, if youare a woman.

all the tales told of teenagers in their bedrooms,“striking it rich with a video camera, youth media created seeminglywithout industrial intervention, content created by youth for youth”(Woods, 2016, p. 237), become part of the creativity dispotif, whichyoung people subsequently seek to emulate

the kind of governmentality that most affectsyoung people trying to build careers for themselves on YouTube or inother spheres of creativity has been identified by McRobbie (2016) asthe ‘creativity dispositif’

he self is subject to neoliberal ideals such as: “self-re-liance, personal responsibility, boldness and a willingness to take risksin the pursuit of goals”

people thinkthey are entirely autonomous and self-directing when, in reality, theiragentic personalities are subject to neoliberal logic. Neoliberalism thuscreates people who feel entirely responsible for the conditions in whichthey live.

Individualism is said to be “anideology based on self-determination, where free actors are assumed tomake choices that have direct consequences for their own unique des-tiny”

For centuries,ongoing popular rhetoric on the rise of individualism (Perelman, 2005)and the march of meritocracy (Frank, 2016), myths though they un-doubtedly are, have collectively espoused “the entrepreneurial ideal”which holds that through hard work and talent any individual can reapenormous rewards

we live in “a societysubject to the dynamic of competition. Not a supermarket society, butan enterprise society.

Dynamic of competition

Technologies of the self

each of us canmake it big with the right amount of pluck and entrepreneurial de-termination”

the neoliberal subject is “an entrepreneur of himself...beingfor himself his producer, being for himself his own capital, being forhimself the source of [his] earnings.”

meritocracy’, as McNamee andMiller, 2009, p. 1) state, is the firm belief that, “if you work hard en-ough and are talented enough, you can overcome any obstacle andachieve success”

“a dominant ideology of global ca-pitalism”and as “a form of governmentality and hegemony”

the ideology of neoli-beralism, which has precipitated unprecedented cultural change byappealing to the values of “...individual freedom, creativity and he-donism”

utopreneurs internalize ‘a structure offeeling’, divined from neoliberal ideology, that shapes, directs andgoverns their everyday affairs. We find that three main wellsprings –the dynamics of competition, the creativity dispositif, and technologies ofthe self –detrimentally affect the quality of their lives and collectivelyinstitute a ‘cruel optimism’which promises much but delivers little

At best, they are ‘micro-celebrities’(Marwick, 2013), small timers who scrape a living or use their still-meagre earning to supplement a day job from which they long to es-cape. Many others are still scrambling, still dreaming of acquiring asignificant following, of one day having bestowed upon them thecoveted title of ‘digital influencer’. Essentially though, YouTubers, of allsorts, embrace the sociotechnical capabilities of the YouTube platformto effectively sell their brand of networked individualism and as suchthey are –whether they know it or not –the unrivalled manifestationsof living, breathing neoliberal idealists

the imperatives of the neoliberal world shapeand govern how entrepreneurs think and act.

We also introduce the notion of ‘autopreneurs’to describe the en-terprising YouTubers who form the representative context of this study.This portmanteau of the terms ‘autobiographical’and ‘entrepreneur’succinctly conveys their intensely enterprising and confessional ten-dencies

entrepreneurial precarity

he literary genre that best encapsulates the entirefield of entrepreneurship is that of “heroic drama”. Successful en-trepreneurs, as protagonists in these dramas are invariably portrayed ashardworking, risk-taking, exceptionally talented and entirely praise-worthy.

certain types of entrepreneurial en-deavor, especially that performed by YouTubers, encourages a self-centered subjectivity where individuals pursue their own self-interestby seeking popularity at all costs

optimistic attachments theyhave to neoliberal ideals such as the promise of meritocracy and in-dividualism are unlikely to come to pass in their lives.

social media as suffering from “anaggressive egotism and neurasthenic passivity

we found a worldquite different from the upbeat optimism of most literature on en-trepreneurial capitalism. While the, probably unwitting, circulation ofneoliberal ideals among participants in the ethnography has certainlybeen effective at making them more entrepreneurial, the impact ontheir personal lives is altogether less sanguine.

althoughthey may view themselves as subjects who have the experience ofchoosing freely, the impact of their entrepreneurial activity has threepernicious effects on the quality of their lives.

Second, their creativity isconstrained by the conformism that the neoliberal logic of hyper-nor-mality tends to promulgate.

First, they are obsessedwith their marketability and the performance of their quantifiableselves —especially when compared to their closest rivals.

This paper questions the assumptions underlying the standard ap-proach to entrepreneurial scholarship which privileges the all-con-quering agentic entrepreneur. Such an outlook requires researchers touncritically accept the unspoken, but nonetheless ever-present notion,that being entrepreneurial is inherently a noble and worthwhile pursuit

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than thosewho falsely believe they are free”