Isirc 2011 tim curtis we are all critical now


Published on

Sneak preview of a presentation to be given at ISIRC in LSBU on the 12th of Sept 2011

Published in: Education, Technology, Spiritual
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Isirc 2011 tim curtis we are all critical now

  1. 1. So, we are all critical now…. are we?<br />Tim Curtis<br />The University of Northampton<br />3rd International Social Innovation Research Conference (Critical Perspectives Track), London South Bank University, 12-13th September 2011<br />
  2. 2. What is critical?<br />‘Ordinary’ critical thinking<br />An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences<br />Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning<br />Some skill in applying those methods.<br />Edward M. Glaser (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University<br />
  3. 3. Critical Theory (CT)<br />Frankfurt School of neo-Marxian interdisciplinary social theory.<br />Horkheimer<br />“The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed”<br />approaches to understanding in the social sciences cannot simply imitate those in the natural sciences<br />self-critical and rejects any pretensions to absolute truth<br />understanding of a "social" experience itself is always fashioned by ideas that are in the researchers themselves<br />Kant: philosophical reflection on the limits of scientific claims<br />Purposeful: “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer 1982, 244).<br />
  4. 4. Influences<br />Political economy: <br />Transition from small-scale entrepreneurial capitalism to monopoly capitalism and imperialism; post-Fordism, late capitalism<br />Weberian:<br />Critique of Western rationalism in capitalism, the modern state, secular scientific rationality, culture, and religion; analysis of the forms of domination<br />Freudian:<br />repressive structure of the "reality principle" of advanced civilization and of the normal neurosis of everyday life; <br />Anti-Postivist<br />Critique of positivism as a philosophy, as a scientific methodology, as a political ideology and as everyday conformity;<br />Post-modernist aesthetic<br />Critique of "false" and reified experience by breaking through its traditional forms and language<br />Marxian<br />class struggle and exploitation of labour in different modes of production; systems analysis of capitalism<br />Culture<br />critique of Western culture as a culture of domination, both of an external and internal nature; dialectic differentiation of emancipatory and repressive dimensions of elite culture;<br />
  5. 5. The Manchester groupCritical Reflections on Social Enterprise 2006<br />Jon Griffith- mythologies and assumptions<br />Mike Bull- definitional instability<br />Tim Curtis- failure/multi-perspective<br />Rory Ridley-Duff- communitarian<br />Pam Seanor- contradictions<br />Doug Foster- socialising ‘ethical’ capital<br />
  6. 6. A (partial) survey of ISIRC 2011 Critical perspectives stream<br />A sample of the submissions- abstracts only<br />
  7. 7. Sunley & Pinch<br />‘social bricolage’ by which they mean non-conventional (sources of finance)<br />Also used by Di Domenico, Haugh & Tracey (2010) ““making do with what is at hand.”<br />Bricoleur (Levi Strauss) “approximates "the savage mind" and the Engineer approximates the scientific mind”- socent is a primitive, closed system and creates nothing new.<br />Or a ‘refusal to enact limitations’ (Domenico)<br />Making social change out of nothing (or whatever is at hand) Gundry et al (2011)<br />DiDomenico, M., Haugh, H. and Tracey, P. (2010), Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34: 681–703<br />
  8. 8. Griffith<br />Not CT, cites influences as “Argyris, Schon, Bateson, Watzlawick et al, Galbraith, Deming, and even Chomsky” (perscomm)<br />Conflates socent with political Social Movement Theory<br />New SMT – movements no longer class based<br />
  9. 9. Sepulveda, Syrett & Calvo<br />A mapping study, with all the associated definitional ‘bagginess’<br />Model of social change = numbers of ethnic minorities in social enterprises + engagement with policy process?<br />Drawing on Delgado & Stefanic (2001) Critical Race Theory, assumes an essentialism within BME socent<br />‘somehow a BME socent (self-identified or not) represents an essential solution to racism and social exclusion.<br />Whilst presents a complex picture, doesn’t situate that complexity in CRT’s ‘intersectionality’ (Crenshaw 1991) of race with gender, sexuality, faith and other factors of exclusion and discrimination.<br />A bricolage approach- ‘factors’ approach to exclusion rather than considering the structures or processes of exclusion<br />
  10. 10. McDonald. Dangers of Definition<br />Based on Eikenberry’s (2009) critique<br />“ideology of the marketplace is essentially anti-social”<br />Addresses symptoms not root causes<br />Or is socent about socialising the marketplace, rather than marketising ‘the social’?<br />Some confusion over ‘market’ and ‘consumer’ – consumerisation of the social is more Marcuse (One Dimensional Man) than Bordieu<br />The lack of isomorphism in this case reinforces Leiter (2005) conclusion that socents are not isomorphic<br />
  11. 11. Irurita, processes of innovation<br />Clearly functionalist (Durkheim), but critical of rhetoric of ‘social innovation’<br />But draws on Amin and Thrifts (1994) institutional thickness as a take on Granovetter’s (1985) networks<br />Mostly strongly rooted in Granovetters New Economic Sociology which critiques a “methodological individualism” which roots all explanation in the (marketised) activity of concrete persons. <br />
  12. 12. Mazzei- reconciliation of ethics<br />“expectations on what social enterprises can and should deliver increase and more emphasis is put on their ‘business side’, the distinctiveness of these organisations risks being overshadowed”<br />“social enterprises challenge the mainstream practices by adopting ‘different ways’ of doing things”- structurally different, or just ‘bricolage’?<br />Assumes a pay-off between ethics and business success, which wasn’t borne out in the environmental enterprises of the 90s.<br />
  13. 13. Spear- sponsored socents<br />sponsored in the sense that lead figures in the entrepreneurial process may be doing it on behalf of individuals and groups of citizens.<br />Also identified in Curtis & Minto (2008), wrt ‘state sponsored social enterprises’<br />Again, echos of Granovetter’s critique of methodological individualism<br />
  14. 14. A grounded typology of critical ‘socent’ theory- (what I have found)<br />Epistemological- what is the ‘social’ in social enterprise, social not just a modifier of enterprise, but enterprise as a modifier of social (Arthur et al, Ridley-Duff…<br />Theoryists- deliberate and extensive use of CT theorists (Steyaert & Dey– Bourdieu, Curtis- Foucault, Nicholls & Cho-Giddens….<br />Methodological: social constructivist/revisionist (Frogget & Maskelyne on Bromley-by-Bow- narratives….<br />
  15. 15. A grounded typology of critical ‘socent’ theory<br />Political economy- marxist, communitarian, green (Greenhoff, Scott-Cato, Ridley-Duff….<br />Feminist- Immaterial and affective labour (Jones, Betta and Latham 2008, Mckay 2010)<br />Queer theory- ??? (transgressions, deviance)- Paolo Grenier, Simon Teasdale, Pascal Dey)<br />Post colonialism??? Green Nyoni (MMU), Heather Watkins (Nottingham) subaltern studies- in PhD, Curtis (forthcoming) - orientalism<br />
  16. 16. Non-CT critical<br />Critique of performance/outcomes<br />Teasdale<br />Aiken<br />Amin<br />Bull<br />Dart (legitimating strategies)<br />Ingo Bode<br />
  17. 17. Bricolage<br />Totally contextual<br />Non-linear development/change<br />Limited creativity<br />Ad hoc, or to put it more fully:<br />“Capital as the central force structuring social relations is systematically obscured by many poststructuralist and antifoundational conceptions of powerasdiffuse, variegated, and contextually specific and has rendered invisible the objective conditions that have produced the bricoleur by locating the subject as a fractured yet mobile discursive positionality—in short, as an effect of texuality. (McLaren 2001)<br />
  18. 18. The critical bricoleur asks: <br />How are social agents—real people—<br />historically located in <br />systematic structures of economic relations, in<br />the “lawless laws of capital”? (McLaren 2001 p704)<br />How do these structurate (Giddens) race, class, and gender?<br />
  19. 19. For Derrida, Levi-Strauss’ bricoleur is the only agent- the engineer is a myth, and the elements are ‘pre-constrained’<br />Which gives us nothing but description.<br />All actors are bricoleurs. We don’t add anything to the body of knowledge by stating that social entrepreneurs and their organisations are bricoleurs<br />We still have to explore HOW they bricolate and what materials they have to hand, why, and how they are constrained by structure.<br />
  20. 20. Conclusions<br />Evidence of a ‘post-modern’ turn<br />But no significant evidence of a ‘critical’ turn.<br />Next steps- more thorough review of recent literature & conference proceedings <br />Incidence of ‘key CT authors’ and ‘key CT terms’<br />Investigate the theoretical influences of key authors<br />
  21. 21. Partial reference list<br />Lisa K. Gundry, Jill R. Kickul, Mark D. Griffiths, Sophie C. Bacq (2011), Creating Social Change Out of Nothing: The Role of Entrepreneurial Bricolage in Social Entrepreneurs' Catalytic Innovations, in G.T. Lumpkin, Jerome A. Katz (ed.) Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 13), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.1-24<br />Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic. (2001) Critical Race theory: An Introduction. New York University Press.<br />Crenshaw, Kimberlé W. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6., pp. 1241–1299.<br />Leiter, J. (2005). “Structural Isomorphism in Australian Nonprofit Organizations.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and NonprofitOrganizations 16(1): 31<br />Amin, A. and N. Thrift (1994) ‘Living in the global’. In Amin, A. and N. Thrift (eds) Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe, Oxford University Press.<br />Granovetter, M. (1985). "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness". American Journal of Sociology 91 (3): 481<br />Curtis, T., I. Minto, et al. (2008). Cultural Shift South East Academic research outcomes. Guildford, South East of England Development Agency<br />Peter McLaren(2001) Bricklayers and Bricoleurs: A Marxist Addendum Qualitative Inquiry December vol. 7 no. 6 700-705<br />Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” in Writing and Difference (trans. Alan Bass. London: Routledge, pp 278-294).<br />McKAY, STEPHEN., PHILLIMORE, JENNY., & TEASDALE, SIMON (2010) EXPLORING THE ‘GENDERED’ NATURE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: WOMENS’ LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE THIRD SECTOR. A paper presented to the 60th Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 29 March – 1 April 2010. Edinburgh, UK.<br />Robert Jones, James Latham, MichelaBetta, (2008) "Narrative construction of the social entrepreneurial identity", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 14 Iss: 5, pp.330 – 345<br />Spivak, G. (1988). ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in Cary Nelson and Larry Grossberg, eds. Marxism and the interpretation of Culture. Uni of Illinois Press, Chicago, pps.271-313. <br />Curtis, T (forthcoming) ‘Newness’ in Social Entrepreneurship Discourses: the Concept of ‘Danwei’ in the Chinese Experience, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship<br />