Hegemonic discourses on entrepreneurship as an ideological mechanism for the reproduction of capital

Abstract

Pointed to as a means of insertion into increasingly competitive labour markets, entrepreneurship has become an ideology of the ‘new capitalist spirit’ that needs to be questioned. Our prime objective here is to identify what orders of discourse are emerging from existing entrepreneurial discourse within Junior Enterprises in Brazil, assuming that, the interdiscursive relations regarding this subject do ideologically contribute to the construction of the contemporary capitalist enterprise as the only possible model for the generation of wealth in society. We carried out a qualitative survey that was epistemologically orientated by interpretivism, and methodologically orientated by critical discourse analysis. In addition, 60 interviews were carried out with students and professors, which allowed the identification of three orders of discourse: (1) a consensus regarding the centrality of companies in terms of thinking and acting of a given individual in the world; (2) the exemplarity of the neoliberal capitalist entrepreneurial model and (3) the absence of feasible alternatives for the contemporary capitalism model. The conclusions problematize the hegemonic discourses on entrepreneurship suggesting that high education has been less of a human emancipation tool and more of a capital reproduction mechanism.

Emancipation and/or oppression? Conceptualizing dimensions of criticality in entrepreneurship studies

“…Potential perspectives include ideology critique, discourse theory and studies which draw on political economy. Illustrations include those contributions which portray entrepreneurs as inherently egotistical, selfish, wayward, dominant and opportunistic individuals (DeLeon, 1996); contributions portraying entrepreneurship as an ideological discourse which deadens our critical faculties (Costa and Saraiva, 2012); and contributions disclosing the surplus value of entrepreneurship which is reinvested only to the benefit of the capitalist entrepreneur ( Jones and Murtola, 2012b). Above all, a dystopian view sheds light on how the discourse of entrepreneurship lends ideological support to a view of the capitalist economy as the single best way of producing wealth and value in society ( James, 2008).…”

“…More recently, postcolonial feminist perspectives have shown how westernized images of "Otherness" impact on the legitimacy and agency of Muslim female entrepreneurs (Essers and Tedmanson, 2014). Critical research has been instrumental for creating insights into how entrepreneurship works as an ideological support of capitalist hegemony (Costa and Saraiva, 2012). Arguably one of the greatest contributions of critical understandings of entrepreneurship up to this point is the revelation that entrepreneurship does not necessarily offer a solution to crisis, such as the current recession, but that it is structurally linked with the emergence of crisis ( Jones and Murtola, 2012a).…”

Towards an Appreciation of Ethics in Social Enterprise Business Models

“…Such caution is warranted. As several authors have claimed, we need to question the way SE is presented as a revision upholding the spirit of capitalism (Barinaga 2013;Costa and Saraiva 2012;Hjorth 2013). Further, Tedmanson et al (2012) warn that entrepreneurship as a ield of study has been dominated by a pro-market and pro-entrepreneur ideology.…”

Rethinking rural entrepreneurship in the era of globalization: some observations from Iran

“…Only this version of entrepreneurship can overcome and overwhelm the hegemonic aftereffects of globalization and its co-opted entrepreneurship; otherwise, "who, exactly, might be interested in the dissemination of an entrepreneurial model that is capitalist, Western, white, male heterosexual, regarded as of European or North American origin, correct and as a standard to be copied by everyone else." (Da Costa & Saraiva, 2012). The four big boxes of the model reminding the anti-globalization outcomes of ACRE.…”