Our intern, Thor, who you will have read blogging here from time to time, has been looking into the history of this movement as part of his work / project while he’s with us. Which reminded me of this post that I wrote for another blog some time ago. Thought it might be of interest….:
It’s quite a common question to those of us who work in the world of social innovation and entrepreneurship: who was the first social entrepreneur? Or, when was the first social invention? The obvious answer, of course, is to say that such people (and ideas) have occurred throughout the ages. People like Robert Owen, Florence Nightingale, Gandhi, Michael Young (see here also) and the Rochdale Pioneers: social entrepreneurs and innovators one and all. But that only takes us a couple of centuries back: what about those social innovations that are so fundamental now that we don’t even think of them as such: the school, law courts, democracy. The latter is famously dated back to Athens (around 510 BC), but law courts and schools date back to 2400 and 2500 BC in Sumeria. The names of those forward-thinking Sumerians are sadly lost in the sands of time, but the campaign for their recognition starts here.
It does help put today’s work in perspective though. The term "social entrepreneur" may not have come into regular usage until the 1970s and 80s (its first use is believed to be in 1958, according to the mighty Wikipedia), but it’s fairly evident that entrepreneurial people wanting to use their skills and traits to make social change have existed for many centuries. Lecturing charities today on how they should start to trade and become self-sufficient seems less relevant when Oxfam started the first charity shop back in 1947 (and they were only copying the Salvation Army and Red Cross who ran second hand clothing shops before that). Similarly, pointing to the co-op movement (which was enshrined in law in the UK in the 1850s and 60s) as a new dawn ignores the mutualism prevalent in Europe at the time, and the craft guilds and friendly societies which existed since the 11th century.
Perhaps this helps make a wider point about (social) innovation and how we should think of it: not innovation in the sense of brand new Eureka ideas (innovation as novelty) but as a continuous process of refinement and incremental improvement, with the occasional bound forward. We are building on the ideas and actions of those who came before, responding to their innovations, and building upon them. But we are also responding to the problems and challenges that some of their innovations have created: advances in medicine mean a growing, ageing population; advances in transport have pollution as a by-product. This helps explain why those who have said (at various points in time), "everything has been invented", are utterly wrong: the need for innovation, particularly social innovation, will never go away.
As John Cage, the US composer puts it, "I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas; I’m frightened of the old ones".
Whilst at the Judge Institute, I was inspired by Discourse Analysis Theory to explore how the term Social Enterprise itself has changed recently. Using the Guardian’s online service to look at back articles, the term really only came to prominence when UK Government began to adopt it and publish strategies around it. At that point in time, the debate about ‘definitions’ came to prominence.
To me, this is a real dilemma – the parts of the sector that were pushing for Govt policy recognition and support that flows from this were successful, but at the same time, a process of exclusion and ‘tightening up’ began.
Most of the time, I am bored with the debate about what does, or does not constitute social enterprise, social entrepreneuship, etc, are we part of a movement, a continuum, whatever.
With changes in the Companies Act and the likely emergence of increasing emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility, ethical trading and policy encouragement for third sector becoming more enterprising, the ‘high ground’ of what some consider to be social enterprise will come under increasing pressure.
Do we care, does it matter? – in my heart of hearts, I say not … but when someone who I think doesn’t fit my definitions takes resources that I think are intended for me, then I tend to get a bit parochial and territorial. Also, I begin to care about the ‘brand’ and the need to protect it.
Depending on your cultural tradition I am sure we could all come up with our first social entrepreneur. The Ark appears in traditions of the Great Flood in many traditions that informed Judaism and Christianity – how about we reclaim Noah in this time of climate change?
But is it truly entrepreneurship if we are instructed to do it? What price Government policy if we say no … its only entrepreneurship if its driven from within the community or by the individual?
Largely agree, Rachel. As we’ve pointed out many times, you can’t commission entrepreneurship; you can’t procure innovation. And I agree absolutely with what you say about the definition debate. I’m utterly tired of it, but when someone tries to restrict / exclude / narrow the term, I feel the need to respond.
I guess, re. government, it’s about knowing that they can help create large-scale social change, and thinking through how can they go about facilitating that or creating the right arena for that to happen. Fostering it, rather than instructing it. We continue to push for people-powered change which, as you say, largely starts with the individual leading, or within, their community.