Activists not entrepreneurs

 One of the key threads that seemed to be coming through the first day of the Learning Without Frontiers conference was the notion of entrepreneurial education. Ray Kurzweil most notably promoted this idea and as an enormously successful technology entrepreneur himself perhaps that was hardly surprising. Kurzweil is clearly a much more intelligent individual than me (another key theme of the conference would be that of me feeling insignificant and intellectually deficient) but nevertheless he made me deeply uneasy.

The main issue is that I struggle with the word 'entrepreneur', particularly in education. For me the word is tainted irretrievably by my having grown up in Thatchers' Scotland when 'entrepreneur' was embodied in 'me first' wide boys desperate to strip communities of services in the pursuit of personal short term financial profit. Yes, that's my personal baggage but we all are informed by our personal contexts either as action or reaction. And weaknesses can be strengths.

Supporters of entrepreneurial education might argue that the word is there to be reclaimed, to be turned to good. They might suggest that the key is in people identifying problems as opportunities and taking action. Getting things done. Making things happen.

Such an intention is splendid. But wouldn't 'Activist' be a much better word for what we describe?

I don't think it's just a question of semantics either. Language is important and in these times more than ever it's a question of taking sides. Those who would use 'entrepreneur' on the side that deifies the mythic Market and the 'activist' supporters on the side that would champion cooperation and equity over competition.

Jaron Lanier suggested that the problem with the entrepreneurial model is that few people can be at the top of that particular tree. It's a traditional pyramid of power/wealth model. If we agree with that (and I do), then if we adopt an entrepreneurial approach to education                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   are we not simply knowingly setting up young people for failure? And is that really so different to what currently exists?

Of course the notion of failure is essential to learning. Without failure we cannot learn. That's a given. But it's more than that isn't it? Isn't taking an entrepreneurial approach to education knowingly ensnaring young people in a lie? Isn't the message of "you can all be successful entrepreneurs" just another aspect of the vile X-Factor culture (what the late great Malcolm McClaren called 'karaoke culture' at LWF a couple of years ago) that says "you can all be stars"?

Doesn't such an approach continue to devalue the significance of the majority of those who make up our societies? I would argue that in our capitalised cultures the notion of entrepreneurial education is hardly disruptive or radical but is instead just a different way of maintaing the status quo. And in these days of financial instability and broken systems is that really such a great idea?

Instead, let us see approaches that promote equity and cooperation. Let's see educational activists, not entrepreneurs.

Comments

[@ethinking]

Hi Alistair,

I hear what you are saying, but.....
Activism is all about sticking it to the man isn't it? For me it has echoes of CND etc, it's anti establishment - its against not for....

Maybe etymologynmit help?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=entrepreneur
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=activist

Neither word works...... We need a better word.

[alistair]

Indeed, what's positive association for one is negative for another... and vice versa.

Perhaps we should go with Charles Leadbetter's idea of systempathy? So what we need are systempathists?