Generative Anger: From Social Enterprise to Antagonistic Economies

Abstract

This paper offers conceptual development of diverse economies thinking in terms of its relationship to antagonism. Rather than seeing antagonism as unhelpfully fuelling capitalocentric thinking, closing down possibilities and restricting our ability to conceptualise how we might live well together, we argue it can usefully recognise and engage with problematic forms of power and domination. Building on calls for a closer engagement of community economies thinking with wider anti-capitalist praxis, the paper explores how social and solidarity economy (SSE) practices sometimes reproduce, sometimes challenge and build alternatives to the darker, constraining, entrenched and durable forms of power that attempt to shape, obstruct and obliterate -but fail to determine -attempts to create better worlds. The paper develops familiar conceptualisations of social enterprise, the social economy, and solidarity economies, before offering the novel concept of the antagonistic economy which, we argue, can be a site from which angry opposition to constraining power relations can generate a more productive politics of possibility. We develop our conception of the antagonistic economy with a discussion of taking back labour, through recovered factories, and taking back land, through community land trusts.

Building Sustainable Rural Communities through Indigenous Social Enterprises: A Humanistic Approach

“…As a consequence, indigenous social enterprises often challenge Western economic paradigms of development [43] since they do not prioritize wealth generation [44]. Instead, they seek to achieve social and environmental goals [41], maintain cultural values [45], improve the well-being of economically disadvantaged groups [46], and promote social justice [47] and alternatives to forms of power that obstruct attempts to create a better world [48].…”

‘Utopia’ failed? Social enterprise, everyday practices and the closure of neoliberalism

“…At their best SE might be pioneering new (alternative) markets in an economy of qualities (Callon et al., 2002). This is illustrated by those SEs (as for example SEs 3, 4 and 5 in our sample) which are ostensibly anti-capitalist organisations and seek to demonstrate the viability of alternative ways to engage with the economy (North et al., 2020). These organisations were found to pioneer the development of “some markets [where] you have constant discussions or negotiations about ethical or political questions” (Callon et al., 2002: 298).…”

“…However, their outcome is heterogeneous, geographically and temporarily variable (Mazzei, 2017). These examples show that alternative models of organisations, such as SE, can successfully operate within and in the service of capitalist systems (North et al., 2020). However, those we studied are still small and disparate which require ethical steadfastness, sacrifices and may not survive an extensive period of intense competition.…”

“…Research in this tradition has revealed how SE works to align civil society organisations with the dictum of neoliberalism by making them more pro-market and business-like (Dart, 2004). An explicitly critical perspective seems well suited in a context where the neoliberal system has come under increasing scrutiny and where SE has become a potent signifier of change (North et al., 2020) in countries such as the UK and elsewhere (Murtagh and McFerran, 2015; Sepulveda et al., 2013). Thus, despite persistent struggles amongst academics to agree on the defining characteristics of SE (Choi and Majumdar, 2014), we are interested in this paper not in the ontological essence of SE but in how SE is represented by powerful actors, and what kind of positive or, more precisely, utopian imaginaries those renditions provoke.…”

“…But as local authorities face deep budget cuts (Cribb et al, 2017) and local economies weaken, particularly in communities where austerity and welfare reform have diminished the already scarce financial resources (Beatty and Fothergill, 2013), it seems naı¨ve to assume that SE will remain unaffected by the reduced (or non-existent) availability of financial resources. This in turn animates questions as to whether SE (can) realise the utopian political program within which they have been situated either as saviours of public service delivery (Dey and Steyaert, 2010;North et al, 2020) or as a panacea for economic recovery (Pike et al, 2016) providing innovative solutions to social and environmental problems. Conversely, it raises questions as to whether the utopian optimism radiated by official imaginaries of SE might obscure the cracks of austerity and reinforce rather than rupture the precariousness that is shaping deprived local economies (Muehlebach, 2013).…”