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”

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

subjectivity is being shaped by externalities beyond their control.

sense of straitjacketing

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

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

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

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.

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

The creativity dispositif

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

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.

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

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

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

Technologies of the self

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

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

he Dynamics of competition

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

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.

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”

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

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

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’

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”

Technologies of the self

Creativity dispositif

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

Dynamic of competition

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”

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

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”

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

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.”

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

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

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

entrepreneurial precarity

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Instead of challenginghegemonic masculinity, the consumerist heterosexuality of masculinity remainssalient

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.’

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

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

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

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

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

Notably, the preferred path to innovation was found in technology

the periodicalsdepicted growth and profit as the essence of entrepreneurialism

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

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.

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

My interrogation of entrepreneurial discourse laysin my own fascination with entrepreneurs

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

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

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.’

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

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

enthusiasm for technology, innovation, andindividualism that underpins entrepreneurial capitalism

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

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

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

entrepreneurial capitalism, where entrepreneurial endeavors represent monetarysuccess and moral fulfillment

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’

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

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

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.

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 economic milieu of this archetype was managerial capitalism.

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

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

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

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

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

we might similarlyconsider the entrepreneur as a transcendent identity construct

I turnnow to identifying the archetype of the entrepreneurial man

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).

To contextualize*and thereby texturize*neoliberal entrepreneurialism

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

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.

archetypes

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

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

shaping individualsinto enterprising selves

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

entrepreneurship and neoliberalismare productively, and also problematically, entwined

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

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

‘boundaryless careers’

Although there may be a gleaming ‘whiter-than-white’ depiction of entrepreneur-ship, this seems to represent but the tip of the iceberg and beneath the surface, so far largelyignored, exists a large hidden enterprise culture composed of entrepreneurs not alwaysplaying within the bounds of the law.

there seems to be marked discrepancy between such textbook celebratory odesto the entrepreneur as legitimate super heroes and the lived realities of entrepreneurship

intrapreneurship

‘parasitic’ wholly off-the-books business venture. When visiting clients for his company, he would whenever appropriategive them a quote for the company doing the job and another for him doing the job privately atthe weekend or in the evening. Unlike others starting-up a business on the side, he had no inten-tion of leaving his formal job since this gave him the necessary contacts for his own micro-enterprise.

the superordinate ‘us’ (namely entrepre-neurship), is endowed with positivity and privileged over the separate subordinate ‘other’(non-entrepreneurship) which is endowed withnegativity and whose meaning is establishedsolely in relation to its superordinate opposite

two dis-tinct groups can be identified: the ‘transitional’ self-employed in the process of formalising theirservice businesses and ‘serial’ off-the-books traders who have no intention of fully legitimisingtheir services

Theremaining third (36%) operate service businesses that arose out of what Stebbins (2004) calls‘serious leisure’ pursuits such as a hobby or interest that leads them to set up enterprisesselling services resulting from it.

Such a finding reinforces the evi-dence elsewhere that those starting-up enterprises tend to be people in waged employment

AsTable 2 displays, they find that the words used to represent entrepreneurship near enoughalways construct entrepreneurship as something inherently good for society and for people.

What type of work do these early-stage off-the-books entrepreneurs engage in? Of thosesetting up an enterprise, about two-thirds (64%) use the skills, tools and/or social networksdirectly related to their current or previous formal employment and/or employment-place intheir off-the-books business ventures.

if you scratch an entrepreneur you will find a “spiv”’

many operating in the off-the-books economy display entrepreneurial qualities

Whether the ‘great person’ school is adopted thatviews them as born (rather than made)

An important outcome of reading entrepreneurs as objects of desire, as will become apparentbelow, is that forms of entrepreneurship which do not reinforce this positive, wholesome andvirtuous ideal-type are either placed outside the boundaries of entrepreneurship, depicted as tem-porary or transient, ignored or simply consigned to the margins by portraying them not as ‘main-stream’ entrepreneurship.

hunting the heffalump

transactions involving illegal goods and services (e.g.drug dealing) are excluded from the off-the-books economy, as are unpaid transactions

off-the-books workers as a ‘hidden enterprise culture

for many years off-the-books work was largely believed tobe mostly composed of exploitative ‘sweatshop-like’ waged employment rather than entrepreneur-ial endeavour