Book review: Strategies for Distributed and Collective Action: Connecting the Dots

IF 7.1 2区 管理学 Q1 Business, Management and Accounting
R. Harrison
{"title":"Book review: Strategies for Distributed and Collective Action: Connecting the Dots","authors":"R. Harrison","doi":"10.1177/02662426221110144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Entrepreneurship stands at a critical juncture. Responsible, as the prevailing neoliberal consensus will have it, for shaping and driving economy and society in the second half of the 20th century, it is uncertain as to whether and to what extent it will continue to do so in the different circumstances of the 21st century. Critics of the state of researching entrepreneurship argue that to date this has been characterised more by activity than by analysis, more by research than by reflection, more by exhortation than by (critical) examination, more by advocacy than by censure. The discourse of entrepreneurship (or of enterprise more generally) is for the most part an ineluctably positive discourse of change, growth, innovation, transformation (of individuals, communities, organisations, technologies, industries and markets), self-actualisation, identity formation and emancipation. This is a discourse that has transcended the economic-based notion of the entrepreneur as founder/ innovator of an enterprise (a la Schumpeter, Kirzner, von Mises, etc.) to become a metaphor encompassing a wide variety of social practises as a general model of social subjectivity (Marttila 2013): as Pozen (2008) has expressed it, ‘we are all entrepreneurs now’, and members of this increasingly entrepreneurialised society have become ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’ (Rose 1996). But this is a discourse fundamentally predicated on a cognitive bias, captured in the ‘law of the instrument’ variously attributed to Abraham Kaplan or Abraham Maslow, who observed in The Psychology of Science (1996, 15) that ‘I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail’. Whatever the problem – post-disaster reconstruction, peacebuilding in conflict and post-conflict societies, social exclusion by gender, race, social status, the digital divide, labour market exclusion, economic marginalisation (e.g. of refugee and forced migrant communities) and so on – ‘entrepreneurship’ appears to be the answer. There is, however, another, emerging, discourse that challenges this entrepreneur-hype bubble. This is reflected in growing awareness of and interest in the dark side of entrepreneurship and its harmful effects on individuals, organisations and communities (Baumol (1990), and in critiques of the pursuit of theoretical casuistry at the expense of practical relevance and impact, a concern with the ‘what’ rather than the ‘why’ of entrepreneurship (Landström andHarirchi 2019).More generally, this has been extended in an emerging critical perspective on entrepreneurship which takes a poststructural and postmodern perspective to question the regimes of domination constructed and perpetuated in the name of the entrepreneur (Jones and Spicer 2009), challenges the glorification of entrepreneurship in the prevailing overwhelmingly proentrepreneurship narrative and its associated exaggerated enthusiasm (Örtenblad 2020), and critiques the neoliberal essence of the contemporary celebration of the entrepreneurial subject discourse (Marttila 2013). revie","PeriodicalId":48210,"journal":{"name":"International Small Business Journal-Researching Entrepreneurship","volume":"19 1","pages":"1041 - 1044"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Small Business Journal-Researching Entrepreneurship","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426221110144","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Entrepreneurship stands at a critical juncture. Responsible, as the prevailing neoliberal consensus will have it, for shaping and driving economy and society in the second half of the 20th century, it is uncertain as to whether and to what extent it will continue to do so in the different circumstances of the 21st century. Critics of the state of researching entrepreneurship argue that to date this has been characterised more by activity than by analysis, more by research than by reflection, more by exhortation than by (critical) examination, more by advocacy than by censure. The discourse of entrepreneurship (or of enterprise more generally) is for the most part an ineluctably positive discourse of change, growth, innovation, transformation (of individuals, communities, organisations, technologies, industries and markets), self-actualisation, identity formation and emancipation. This is a discourse that has transcended the economic-based notion of the entrepreneur as founder/ innovator of an enterprise (a la Schumpeter, Kirzner, von Mises, etc.) to become a metaphor encompassing a wide variety of social practises as a general model of social subjectivity (Marttila 2013): as Pozen (2008) has expressed it, ‘we are all entrepreneurs now’, and members of this increasingly entrepreneurialised society have become ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’ (Rose 1996). But this is a discourse fundamentally predicated on a cognitive bias, captured in the ‘law of the instrument’ variously attributed to Abraham Kaplan or Abraham Maslow, who observed in The Psychology of Science (1996, 15) that ‘I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail’. Whatever the problem – post-disaster reconstruction, peacebuilding in conflict and post-conflict societies, social exclusion by gender, race, social status, the digital divide, labour market exclusion, economic marginalisation (e.g. of refugee and forced migrant communities) and so on – ‘entrepreneurship’ appears to be the answer. There is, however, another, emerging, discourse that challenges this entrepreneur-hype bubble. This is reflected in growing awareness of and interest in the dark side of entrepreneurship and its harmful effects on individuals, organisations and communities (Baumol (1990), and in critiques of the pursuit of theoretical casuistry at the expense of practical relevance and impact, a concern with the ‘what’ rather than the ‘why’ of entrepreneurship (Landström andHarirchi 2019).More generally, this has been extended in an emerging critical perspective on entrepreneurship which takes a poststructural and postmodern perspective to question the regimes of domination constructed and perpetuated in the name of the entrepreneur (Jones and Spicer 2009), challenges the glorification of entrepreneurship in the prevailing overwhelmingly proentrepreneurship narrative and its associated exaggerated enthusiasm (Örtenblad 2020), and critiques the neoliberal essence of the contemporary celebration of the entrepreneurial subject discourse (Marttila 2013). revie
书评:《分布式和集体行动的策略:把点连起来》
创业正处于关键时期。正如流行的新自由主义共识所认为的那样,它对塑造和推动20世纪下半叶的经济和社会负有责任,但在21世纪的不同环境中,它是否会继续这样做,以及在多大程度上继续这样做,目前还不确定。对创业研究现状的批评人士认为,迄今为止,创业研究的特点更多地是活动而不是分析,更多地是研究而不是反思,更多地是劝诫而不是(批判性)检查,更多地是倡导而不是谴责。企业家精神(或更普遍的企业)的话语在很大程度上是一种不可避免的积极话语,涉及变革、增长、创新、转型(个人、社区、组织、技术、行业和市场)、自我实现、身份形成和解放。这是一种话语,它超越了企业家作为企业创始人/创新者的经济基础概念(熊彼特、科兹纳、冯·米塞斯等),成为一种隐喻,涵盖了各种各样的社会实践,作为社会主体性的一般模式(马蒂拉2013):正如Pozen(2008)所表达的那样,“我们现在都是企业家”,这个日益企业化的社会的成员已经成为“自己的企业家”(Rose 1996)。但这是一种基于认知偏见的话语,被认为是亚伯拉罕·卡普兰(Abraham Kaplan)或亚伯拉罕·马斯洛(Abraham Maslow)在《科学心理学》(1996,15)中观察到的“工具法则”所捕获,他在《科学心理学》(the Psychology of Science)中观察到,“我认为,如果你唯一的工具是一把锤子,那么把一切都当作钉子来对待是很诱人的”。无论问题是什么——灾后重建、冲突和冲突后社会的和平建设、性别、种族、社会地位、数字鸿沟、劳动力市场排斥、经济边缘化(例如难民和被迫移民社区)等等——“创业”似乎都是答案。然而,另一种正在兴起的话语挑战了这种企业家炒作泡沫。这反映在对创业的黑暗面及其对个人、组织和社区的有害影响的日益认识和兴趣(Baumol(1990)),以及对以牺牲实际相关性和影响为代价追求理论诡辩的批评,关注创业的“是什么”而不是“为什么”(Landström and harirchi 2019)。更一般地说,这已经扩展到新兴的创业批判视角,该视角采用后结构和后现代的视角来质疑以企业家的名义构建和延续的统治制度(Jones and Spicer 2009),挑战了在压倒性的支持创业的叙事中对创业的美化及其相关的夸大热情(Örtenblad 2020)。并批评了当代创业主体话语庆祝活动的新自由主义本质(Marttila 2013)。里维
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The International Small Business Journal (ISBJ) is a leading peer-reviewed journal renowned for publishing high-quality original research papers on small business and entrepreneurship. It prioritizes research-based studies that contribute to theory development, critical understanding, and policy formulation related to small firms. ISBJ papers encompass theoretical, methodological, and empirical studies from various disciplines and perspectives, aiming for research excellence in the field. The journal provides a critical forum for world-class contributions analyzing entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behavior. This refereed journal is valuable to academics, policymakers, analysts, government and business officials, small business representative bodies, and support agencies seeking to gain insights into the sector, trade, business institutions, and related matters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信