4 ms·

The neoliberal condition is in part characterized by the entrepreneurialization of everything, the penetration of Michel Foucault's homo economicus (entrepreneu

The neoliberal condition is in part characterized by the entrepreneurialization of everything, the penetration of Michel Foucault's homo economicus (entrepreneur of the self) into more and more spheres of production, consumption, and everyday life. Increasingly, you're an "entrepreneur" no matter what, whether you're a food truck owner, a freelance designer, an Uber driver, an Airbnb host, a YouTube star. Entrepreneur means a blurring of boundaries, working from home, homing from work. In my possibly-naive opinion, it wouldn't be such a problem, if only we didn't tie value and self-worth so much on work, both culturally and politically. This entrepreneurialization goes hand-in-hand with the condition of precarity, feeling like you have to work your ass off, have to stay at the top of your game, to keep making a living, because you have no other way to live. It is incredibly dangerous, and it's increasingly defining us, the millennial and post-millennial generations.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
As a clarification, Foucault did not define the term Homo Economicus [1]. He used the concept from Economics to describe the atomization of the individual inside the capitalist state structure, in contest with the "State" as a push-pull with that power structure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
- elvinyung 8y ago
  This is true, but I mostly know of the concept from Foucault's lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics (in particular the "atomization" aspect you mentioned), which I think is slightly different from those other definitions (which is also why I said "Foucault's").
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    It's not so much different, as it's derivative and muddily so. Foucault had a tendency to re-define terms as he saw fit, irrespective of their historical use - as his philosophy would encourage - which is partly why the majority of his writing is so obtuse to other philosophers.
    - FabHK 8y ago
      Obtuse, full stop.
coldtea 8y ago
>This entrepreneurialization goes hand-in-hand with the condition of precarity, feeling like you have to work your ass off, have to stay at the top of your game, to keep making a living, because you have no other way to live. It's more of a precarization than an entrepreneurialization. An entrepreneur has bigger stakes but also a bigger payoff than being paid to ride their car as an Uber for example.
- elvinyung 8y ago
  I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be true in tech, but not necessarily for the majority of small businesses. I can't recall off the top of my head which one, but I remember seeing a study that showed that a significant amount of small business owners in the US did so just to get to do what they want for a living. (Again, why the "for a living"?) Entrepreneurialism, in a lot of cases, is a new kind of wage slavery. The precarity is the most easily exploited (by rideshare services, freelance agencies, marketplace platforms, among others) to coax people into positions without security or benefits.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    For a living probably means something else now than the past. Past: For a living - so I don't starve to death. Now: For a living - I want the perceived freedom in choice of work that fits my lifestyle.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Yeah, we're not happy to just have the fire, speak in languages, and live in caves either. We don't compare ourselves with the early humans before they discovered those things and feel lucky. And neither those that starved to death did. What constitutes "a living" is always relative. That said, you can very much still starve and get sick and homeless to death in modern rich societies...
chii 8y ago
> ... because you have no other way to live. what other way is there to live then?
- elvinyung 8y ago
  As a very very basic example: UBI.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Most descriptions of UBI I’ve read so far seem to indicate that the problem would get even worse, as people are free to pursue their interests instead of their boring jobs, and their interests are competitive creative fields like writing, painting, being a YouTube star, etc. Even if survival isn’t tied to success, people will still want views and recognition.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

As a clarification, Foucault did not define the term Homo Economicus [1]. He used the concept from Economics to describe the atomization of the individual inside the capitalist state structure, in contest with the "State" as a push-pull with that power structure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

elvinyung 8y ago
This is true, but I mostly know of the concept from Foucault's lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics (in particular the "atomization" aspect you mentioned), which I think is slightly different from those other definitions (which is also why I said "Foucault's").
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  It's not so much different, as it's derivative and muddily so. Foucault had a tendency to re-define terms as he saw fit, irrespective of their historical use - as his philosophy would encourage - which is partly why the majority of his writing is so obtuse to other philosophers.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Obtuse, full stop.

coldtea 8y ago

>This entrepreneurialization goes hand-in-hand with the condition of precarity, feeling like you have to work your ass off, have to stay at the top of your game, to keep making a living, because you have no other way to live. It's more of a precarization than an entrepreneurialization. An entrepreneur has bigger stakes but also a bigger payoff than being paid to ride their car as an Uber for example.

elvinyung 8y ago
I would really say that they're different sides of the same coin. I also wouldn't say that an entrepreneur necessarily has noticeably bigger payoff. It might be true in tech, but not necessarily for the majority of small businesses. I can't recall off the top of my head which one, but I remember seeing a study that showed that a significant amount of small business owners in the US did so just to get to do what they want for a living. (Again, why the "for a living"?) Entrepreneurialism, in a lot of cases, is a new kind of wage slavery. The precarity is the most easily exploited (by rideshare services, freelance agencies, marketplace platforms, among others) to coax people into positions without security or benefits.
- pixl97 8y ago
  For a living probably means something else now than the past. Past: For a living - so I don't starve to death. Now: For a living - I want the perceived freedom in choice of work that fits my lifestyle.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Yeah, we're not happy to just have the fire, speak in languages, and live in caves either. We don't compare ourselves with the early humans before they discovered those things and feel lucky. And neither those that starved to death did. What constitutes "a living" is always relative. That said, you can very much still starve and get sick and homeless to death in modern rich societies...

chii 8y ago

> ... because you have no other way to live. what other way is there to live then?

elvinyung 8y ago
As a very very basic example: UBI.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Most descriptions of UBI I’ve read so far seem to indicate that the problem would get even worse, as people are free to pursue their interests instead of their boring jobs, and their interests are competitive creative fields like writing, painting, being a YouTube star, etc. Even if survival isn’t tied to success, people will still want views and recognition.