the engenderment of social capital

marketization provides nonprofits with benefits, such as greaterefficiency and innovation, but at the same time affects their ability to fulfill their traditionalroles as guardians of societal values, service providers, advocates for the interests of local com-munities, and purveyors of social capital

The article proceeds in the following manner

the increasing influence of the values and logic of themarketplace on the nonprofit sector, its so-called marketization

discourses

I have deliberately chosen to use masculine pronouns in my discussion of the characteristics and behavior of theEntrepreneur because the Entrepreneur is typically and traditionally presented as male in the literature, as my discussionof Schumpeter’s “Man of Action”demonstrate

"[S]ociety is not like a machine that is created at some point in time and then main-tained with a minimum of effort; it is being continuously re-created, for good or ill, by its members. This will strike some as a burdensome responsibility, but it will summon others to greatness."

the questionable modern notion that individuals need only assume responsibility for themselves in order to enjoy social well-being.

It's worth asking how modem democracies have evolved to accept individualistic social norms that would cause tribal societies, military units, and sports teams to collapse.

olunteering, say, or being helpful to neighbors or addressing social problems-is consid-ered optional (though it is esteemed)

Beyond taxation to pay for the social safety net, we don't ask or expect citizens to assume responsibility for the well-being of anyone outside their families.

What we don't have is a collective belief that with citizen-ship comes a responsibility to serve society.

As the field of social entrepreneurship continues to expand, it may foreshadow a new stage of democracy-one animated by citizens who are actively involved in building, shaping, and renewing organizations to improve society. As such, it may also come to redefine citizenship.

In wealthy democracies, social entrepreneurs spend as much time renewing old institutions as they do building new ones. In poor, weak, or failed states, however, social entrepre-neurs are more often focused on basic needs which people in Western democracies take for granted.

It is difficult for social entrepre-neurship to flourish without a baseline of security and social order.

a kind of activism is emerging that is more concerned with problem solving than voicing outrage.

Outside activists have convinced companies that they need to change, while social entrepreneurs working on the inside have shown them what to do.

We might define a good citizen as one who takes an active and intentional role in the shaping of a good society, both at an individual and communal level.

To get the attention of policy makers, social entrepreneurs have to learn how to compete head to head with well-financed lobbyists and any number of special interest groups.

Social entrepreneurship is inductive and outward-looking: it moves from observation and experimentation to institution-alization and independent adoption.

To get them to break with the past, it's not enough to condemn them or boycott their companies. We must show them how to build the future. We must advise or compete with them.

As a long-term change strategy, however, the greatest power of activism may not be its ability to compel action but its capacity to elicit empathy by making injustice and suffering palpable.

The primary feedback mechanisms for policy makers-press reports and elections-punish failure and demand results in unrealistically short time frames.

Activists bring political or consumer pressure to bear by showing their numbers and their intensity, and thereby forcing elected officials, business executives, or other leaders to heed their demands and attend to their grievances.

One fundamental difference between today' s social entre-preneurs and yesterday's activists is that, historically, activists have proceeded largely as outsiders to power-like uninvited guests storming the gates of the mansion. By contrast, social entrepreneurs frequently combine outside- and inside-oriented tactics to bring change.

Activism can be thought of as a subset of social entrepreneur-ship

Governments can be innovative, of course, especially when institutional entrepreneurs, or intrapreneurs, are given leeway to innovate.

Just as nobody can predict where the next eBay, Coogle, or Twitter will come from, nobody can predict where the best solutions to tough social problems will emerge.

it flows from the bottom up. Typically it grows out of one person's direct interaction with a problem and a simple question: "Hey, what if we tried X?" What follows is an experiment, a response, some adjust-ment, and more experimentation. Over time, the entrepreneur accumulates experience. He or she works to attract resources and usually has to persuade people to abandon conventional careers in order to join a small team of people committed to an unproven idea. At the outset, the process requires unusual levels of commitment. It also requires humility and faith,

change by influencing the decision making of large institu-tions or by changing public attitudes, while social entrepre-neurs pursue a wider range of options, including building institutions that directly implement solutions themselves.

twelve social entrepreneurs supported by Echoing Green who all experi-enced a "moment of obligation" that caused them to change course and pursue work of deep personal significance.

Society needs to encourage and harness decentralized social experimentation on a larger scale and far more systematically than it currently does.

What is innovative in one generation may be conventional or even retrograde in the next. Microfinance began as an example of social entrepreneurship, but now these services are being extended by formal financial institutions primarily interested in profitability.

We often reduce social entrepreneurship to stories of char-ismatic people. As we have mentioned, social entrepreneur-ship describes a process, a way to organize problem-solving efforts.

Social entrepreneurs don't control major resources, and, unlike governments, they can't command compliance. They have to leverage resources that others control and influence people by articulating goals that are meaningful.

Social entrepreneurs are most effective when they demonstrate ideas that inspire others to go out and create their own social change. The beauty of demonstrating positive pathways is that it is possible to redi-rect human energy without telling people what to do.

Some researchers argue that there is little use in making distinctions and that all entrepreneurs should be considered social entrepreneurs because they generate employment and meet needs.

Today the attention meter is angling in the direction of social entrepreneurship as more people are asking themselves the question at its heart: What kind of enterprise is worth devoting your life to build?

In our view, however, banks prac-tice social entrepreneurship only when they seek to maximize social impact rather than profitability.

Without minimizing their contributions to the solution, it's useful to distinguish conventional firms from those that are pioneering new products, attempting to change industries, or building markets in particularly difficult contexts.

Both types of entrepreneurship require vision, initiative, organization building and "marketing." In terms of skill and temperament, social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different.

one quality not to be overlooked is the capacity to derive joy and celebrate small successes, even while the path ahead remains difficult. Social entrepreneurship is a long-term commitment, with many setbacks and disappointments. Those who stick it out and manage to recruit others always find ways to enjoy the journey.

The main difference has to do with purpose, or what the enterprise is trying to maximize. For social entrepreneurs, the bottom line is to maximize some form of social impact, usually by addressing an urgent need that is being mishandled, over-looked, or ignored by other institutions. For business entre-preneurs, the bottom line may be to maximize profits or shareholder wealth, or to build an ongoing, respected entity that provides value to customers and meaningful work to employees.

The most common misconception about entrepreneurs is that they like to take risks. While researching his landmark book The Achieving Society, David McClelland found that entrepreneurs are attracted to challenges when the key deter-minant of success is skill, not chance. Entrepreneurs aren't gamblers, he wrote. In fact, they will go to extreme lengths to minimize or eliminate risks, painstakingly seeking informa-tion to increase the odds of success. They usually overesti-mate their chances of success, however, which is why others perceive them as risk takers.

We wouldn't call someone a social entrepreneur who introduced snacks like potato chips or Twinkies to the Chinese market, even if his or her firm generated a million jobs.

one should not be deemed superior to the other, although social entrepreneurship is often more challenging because it tackles problems that have defied governmental approaches and for which market solutions have not yet been demonstrated.

Many social entrepreneurs believe that they are fulfilling their life's purpose. For some, this conviction stems from a conscious faith. For others, it grows intuitively and slowly as they pursue different kinds of work until alighting on a voca-tion that expresses their values and talents.

To succeed, social entrepreneurs have to remain steadfast in the face of choruses of doubters and critics.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Psychologists note that entrepreneurs score high on the quality "inner locus of control." They locate power within, rather than outside, themselves.

Entrepreneurs intentionally cultivate relation-ships with people across political camps and from a variety of backgrounds so they can better understand how to navigate change.

they sometimes have difficulty working closely with people who want to lead more balanced lives.

Social entrepreneurs frequently speak of an adult they were close to in childhood, usually a parent or other relative, who was highly ethical and had a profound influence on their thinking. They often refer to these relatives when explaining their inability to bypass the suffering of others.

Although some people are born with more entrepreneurial inclination than others, the management expert Peter Drucker has argued that most people can learn to behave like entrepreneurs.

For people who are often exposed to extreme suffering, social entrepreneurs are surprisingly nonideological.

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.