![]() ![]() Because of this danger, we believe that we need a much sharper definition of social entrepreneurship, one that enables us to determine the extent to which an activity is and is not “in the tent.” Our goal is not to make an invidious comparison between the contributions made by traditional social service organizations and the results of social entrepreneurship, but simply to highlight what differentiates them. If that promise is not fulfilled because too many “nonentrepreneurial” efforts are included in the definition, then social entrepreneurship will fall into disrepute, and the kernel of true social entrepreneurship will be lost. Social entrepreneurship is an appealing construct precisely because it holds such high promise. We are inclined to argue, however, that this is a flawed assumption and a precarious stance. ![]() If plenty of resources are pouring into the social sector, and if many causes that otherwise would not get sufficient funding now get support because they are regarded as social entrepreneurship, then it may be fine to have a loose definition. In some respects this inclusiveness could be a good thing. As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit. In fact, we would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything but clear. Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and its practitioners apart.Īlthough the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are clear to many of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return is less clear. People are attracted to social entrepreneurs like last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus for many of the same reasons that they find business entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs so compelling – these extraordinary people come up with brilliant ideas and against all the odds succeed at creating new products and services that dramatically improve people’s lives.īut interest in social entrepreneurship transcends the phenomenon of popularity and fascination with people. On the most basic level, there’s something inherently interesting and appealing about entrepreneurs and the stories of why and how they do what they do. The reasons behind the popularity of social entrepreneurship are many. The term itself shows up frequently in the media, is referenced by public officials, has become common on university campuses, and informs the strategy of several prominent social sector organizations, including Ashoka and the Schwab and Skoll Foundation foundations. The nascent field of social entrepreneurship is growing rapidly and attracting increased attention from many sectors. ![]() Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition.Finally, the paper will illustrate through examples of Bollywood and interviews with BharatNatyam teachers (in Sweden) how improvisation, and newness is brought into various aspects of performance arts, thereby challenging Sheldon Pollock’s reading of the Natyashastra, as being rigid and frozen in time and devoid of bringing novelty, making them irrelevant to our times.A starter kit for leaders of social change. There will also be a focus on the concept of hieropraxis (art as worship, pleasing both people and Gods), which was common, both to Indian and Greek art forms. Using Bharat Gupt’s study of the poetics and Natyashastra, this paper will focus on similarities in both Indian and Greek aesthetics, also highlighting when and why contemporary notion of aesthetics in European theatre moved away from the Greek, which was more similar to the Indian sensibility. An integral part of aesthetics both Indian and Greek (although European performing arts moved away from the original concept of Greek aesthetics) is improvisation on the rules that are suggested for a clear structure, which by definition is fluid and allows room for ‘newness. Rasa, in Indian context, applied to both the performer and the audience is considered an alaukika (other worldly) experience. Rasa, meaning gist, is the essence that one feels when experience an art piece, be it performance or static art. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |