Skip to main content

Registering Ideology in the Creation of Social Entrepreneurs: Intermediary Organizations, ‘Ideal Subject’ and the Promise of Enjoyment

Abstract

Research on social entrepreneurship has taken an increasing interest in issues pertaining to ideology. In contrast to existing research which tends to couch ‘ideology’ in pejorative terms (i.e., something which needs to be overcome), this paper conceives ideology as a key mechanism for rendering social entrepreneurship an object with which people can identify. Specifically, drawing on qualitative research of arguably one of the most prolific social entrepreneurship intermediaries, the global Impact Hub network, we investigate how social entrepreneurship is narrated as an ‘ideal subject,’ which signals toward others what it takes to lead a meaningful (working) life. Taking its theoretical cues from the theory of justification advanced by Boltanski, Chiapello and Thévenaut, and from recent affect-based theorizing on ideology, our findings indicate that becoming a social entrepreneur is considered not so much a matter of struggle, hardship, and perseverance but rather of ‘having fun.’ We caution that the promise of enjoyment which pervades portrayals of the social entrepreneur might cultivate a passive attitude of empty ‘pleasure’ which effectively deprives social entrepreneurship of its more radical possibilities. The paper concludes by discussing the broader implications this hedonistic rendition of social entrepreneurship has and suggests a re-politicization of social entrepreneurship through a confronting with what Slavoj Žižek calls the ‘impossible.’

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Agafonow, A. (2014). Toward a positive theory of social entrepreneurship: On maximizing versus satisficing value capture. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 709–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). London: Monthly Review Press.

  • Althusser, L. (2005). For Marx. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B. B., Dees, J. G., & Emerson, J. (2002). Developing viable earned income strategies. In J. G. Dees, J. Emerson, & P. Economy (Eds.), Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit (pp. 191–234). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, F. O. (2011). Social entrepreneurship as fetish. The Nonprofit Quarterly. www.nonprofitquarterly.org.

  • Armstrong, P. (2001). Science, enterprise and profit: Ideology in the knowledge-driven economy. Economy and Society, 30, 524–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (2000). The end of ideology: On the exhaustion of political ideas in the fifties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddice, R. (2009). Forgotten antecedents: Entrepreneurship, ideology and history. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 133–152). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification. The economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandstetter, L., & Lehner, O. M. (2015). Opening the market for impact investments: The need for adapted portfolio tools. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 5, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bröckling, U. (2002). Das unternehmerische Selbst und seine Geschlechter. Gender-Konstruktionen in Erfolgsratgebern. Leviathan, 48, 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M. (2008). Challenging tensions: critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14, 268–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiapello, E. (2003). Reconciling the two principal meaning of the notion of ideology: The example of the concept of the ‘spirit of capitalism’. European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meanings and perspectives in the research process. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, T. (2008). Finding that grit makes a pearl: A critical re-reading of research into social enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14, 276–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, T. M., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22, 1203–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, G. (2004). Introduction: Risking the impossible. In S. Žižek & G. Daly (Eds.), Conversations with Žižek (pp. 1–20). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Non-profit Management & Leadership, 14, 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketisation and work/life balance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization, 17, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P. (2014). Governing the social through ‘social entrepreneurship’: A Foucauldian view of the ‘art of governing’ in advanced liberalism. In H. Douglas & S. Grant (Eds.), Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: Context and theories (pp. 55–72). Melbourne: Tilde University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 4, 85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Critique and the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal, 8, 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2016). Rethinking the space of ethics in social entrepreneurship: Power, subjectivity, and practices of concrete freedom. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 627–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2013). ‘Social enterprise’ and dis/identification: The politics of identity work in the UK third sector. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 35, 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2015). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting ‘as if’ in the everyday life of third sector organizations. Organization. doi:10.1177/1350508415570689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, M. (2012). An interview with Michael Porter: Social entrepreneurship and the transformation of capitalism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 582–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64, 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyke, J. P., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked problems in leading change and changing leaders. Human Relations, 66, 1619–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J. (2001). The grip of ideology: A Lacanian approach to the theory of ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 6, 191–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J. (2008). Ideological fantasy at work. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13, 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J., Klimecki, R., & Willmott, H. (2012). Cooling out the marks: The ideology and politics of the financial crisis. Journal of Cultural Economy, 5, 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of ‘ideology’: Return of the repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media (pp. 56–90). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S., & O’Shea, A. (2013). Common-sense neoliberalism. Soundings, 55, 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjorth, D. (2013). Public entrepreneurship: Desiring social change, creating sociality. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25, 34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, F. (1977). Ideology, narrative analysis, and popular culture. Theory and Society, 4, 543–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Murtola, A. M. (2012). Entrepreneurship, crisis, critique. In D. Hjorth (Ed.), Handbook of organizational entrepreneurship (pp. 116–133). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Spicer, A. (2010). Unmasking the entrepreneur. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, K., & Fotaki, M. (2014). The psychosocial and organization studies: Affect at work. New York: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, O. M., & Germak, A. J. (2014). Antecedents of social entrepreneurship: Between public service motivation and the need for achievement. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3, 214–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lett, J. (1990). Emics and etics: Notes on the epistemology of anthropology. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, & M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 127–142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levander, U. (2010). Social enterprise: Implication of emerging institutionalized constructions. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneurial models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (2004). Surveying social entrepreneurship: Toward an empirical analysis of the performance revolution in the social sector. St. Gallen: Center for Public Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. (2012). Up for grabs: A critical discourse analysis of social entrepreneurship discourse in the United Kingdom. Social Enterprise Journal, 8, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Moran, M. (forthcoming). The tale of the veil: Unweaving Big Society and unweaving the social enterprise myth. In P. Dey & C. Steyaert (Eds.), Critical perspectives on social entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 37–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, T. (2004). The end of dissatisfaction? Jacques Lacan and the emerging society of enjoyment. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, C. (2012). Žižek and communist strategy: On the disavowed foundations of global capitalism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 781–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. W., Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Lumkin, G. T. (2011). Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 805–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 611–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbor, J. O. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology-critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 606–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D., & Teasdale, S. (2012). Whose failure? Learning from the financial collapse of a social enterprise in ‘Steeltown’. Voluntary Sector Review, 3, 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, B. M. (2008). ‘Behold, I am making all things new’: The entrepreneur as savior in the age of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrakakis, Y. (2008). Peripheral vision subjectivity and the organized other: Between symbolic authority and fantasmatic enjoyment. Organization Studies, 29, 1037–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavrakakis, Y. (2010). Symbolic authority, fantasmatic enjoyment and the spirits of capitalism: Genalogies of mutual engagement. In C. Cederström & C. Hoedemaekers (Eds.), Lacan and organization (pp. 59–100). London: MayFly Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, L. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanSant, C. V., Mukesh, S., & Marmé, C. (2009). Enabling the original intent: Catalysts for social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasi, I. B. (2009). New heroes, old theories? Toward a sociological perspective on social entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 155–173). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1988). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, S. M. B. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 503–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1994). Mapping ideology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S., & Badiou, A. (2005). Lacanian ink 24/25. New York: The Wooster Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Dey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dey, P., Lehner, O. Registering Ideology in the Creation of Social Entrepreneurs: Intermediary Organizations, ‘Ideal Subject’ and the Promise of Enjoyment. J Bus Ethics 142, 753–767 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3112-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3112-z

Keywords

  • Social entrepreneurship
  • Ideology
  • Ideal subject
  • Affect
  • Enjoyment
  • Hedonism
  • Narratives
  • Intermediary organizations