Social Enterprise and Dis/identification

Abstract

Social enterprise has been criticized for discursively transforming third sector organizations and practitioners into economic agents. Such a critique too readily construes the discourse of social enterprise as a deterministic force that encroaches on all aspects of organizational and individual identity. We reintroduce a sense of agency to discursive conceptualizations through an empirical study focusing on whether and how social enterprise infiltrates the third sector at the level of the subject. Drawing from a qualitative study in England, we use Pêcheux's three-part model of dis/identification as an explanatory schema to conceptualize the ways third sector practitioners endorse or reject the inherent norms and principles of social enterprise. The discussion covers how processes of identification, counter-identification, and disidentification, respectively, perpetuate or transgress the discourse of social enterprise and highlights the implications for future research in this developing field.Although the meaning of "social enterprise" is contested, most definitions refer to market-based strategies aimed at achieving a social purpose (Kerlin, 2009). Social enterprise is usually, although not exclusively, associated with the nonprofit or third sector, where it has often been presented as a panacea that brings the efficiency of markets to bear upon social problems that neither the state nor traditional third sectors were able to solve (Sepulveda, 2009). The social enterprise research literature is dominated by functionalist and managerial perspectives that conceal a normative and prescriptive agenda hiding behind the illusion of social enterprise's being inevitable. Critical 248

From Policy to Practice: Exploring Practitioners’ Perspectives on Social Enterprise Policy Claims

“…While the research underpinning this paper was not aimed at studying discourse per se, the themes emerging through our qualitative research stood in contrast to the optimistic messages emanating from governmental reports. This partly reflects practitioners' agency (Dey and Teasdale 2013) in implementing social enterprise according to their social realities rather than policymakers' claims. This also resonates with the work of Howorth et al (2011) in England who found that the policy drive leads to a diverse application of the policy discourse in social enterprise.…”

“…For some, the political interest in, and the case for, social enterprise is premised upon the conviction that traditional Western models of welfare provision are coming to an end (Peredo 2011), and that welfare states are unaffordable (Roper and Cheney 2005), bureaucratic and inefficient, and so unable to meet the social needs of citizens (Dees 1998). This functionalist and managerial account (Dey and Teasdale 2013) considers social enterprise inevitable, and public policy as the means through which the Third Sector can be transformed into a more efficient mechanism of addressing social needs. In policy terms, as noted by Hudson (2009) and Amin (2009), it is recognised and accepted that a 'third system' (Pearce 2003) should exist in parallel to state and market, sometimes overlapping with the mainstream economy through its market orientation (for example, consumer cooperative organisations) or through the absorption of state welfare functions (as the case with social cooperatives in Italy) (Amin 2009, p. 33).…”

Social enterprise as a generator of quality of life and sustainable development in rural communities

“…Este cambio en el enfoque ha provocado que organizaciones sin fines de lucro adopten diferentes mecanismos de mercado que les provean de los medios necesarios para llevar a cabo su misión social (Dey & Teasdale, 2013).…”

Sport and Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of a Concept in Progress

“…Dey and Teasdale's (2013) article has its roots in the Social Enterprise School and deals with the manner in which social entrepreneurial organizations relate to, and are possibly influenced by, the discourse on social enterprises in the UK. This British study shows that the discourse did not affect the fifteen organizations included in the study to the extent the researchers had first predicted.…”

“…For example, the general manager of one sports club took an active stance against the discourse based on ideological reasons; the manager had severe doubts concerning the motives behind the British government's promotion of social enterprises. The government's main objective, according to the manager, was to facilitate cutbacks in the public sector rather than institute any societal improvements (Dey & Teasdale, 2013).…”