If you spend any amount of time following the field of social
entrepreneurship, there are some easy to spot trends and movements.
at Collective Responsibility:
http://collectiveresponsibility.org/en/moving-past-and-capturing-passion-soci… One of the big discussions is the definition of what SE really is. Nothing surprising there, any “new” community or movement will be in
the search for what defines them, what sets them a part from other (in
case of SE: traditional NGOs, aid work, etc.). Following this development what I would expect to see is at one point
the community becoming comfortable in the clothes that we are wearing.
Starting feeling that we know what sets us a part and instead focus
not on building the framework, but rather innovating within it (and
sometimes outside it – creating new communities & groups). Some people argue that the search for definition is leading SE off
track – maybe they’re right. However, from what I have seen of
community development, this is a necessary (if maybe time consuming)
process to go trough. What do you think? Is it a waste of time or a necessary process?
Hi Linus! Happy to see you pursuing your interests.
Regarding the “defining” of SE – I personally think, it is a natural process, however, it shouldn’t be a priority for the field. Why to define something, if its naturally working? Sometimes big words and definitions do truly get you off the track. So I would say, let it go the way it goes and if some discussions on definition occur, fine, but do not push it hard…
My friend Romy says, “As long as it delivers positive social impact, call it whatever…even a spaceship”
I think you need to problematise social impact a bit more than that? What kind of social impact does it deliver, for whom, at the expense of who else? Does it work alongside or against existing power structures? A spaceship might be nice, but if it wastes resources or blows a hole in somebodys backyard when landing maybe it’s not the solutions to social problems we need. Social business seems me, as a sector, to attempt to divorce itself from the complexities of human societies by compartmentalising social issues into a reductionist frame that can fit in a 20 slide pp deck.