 |
| My "artistic" attempt to signify balance in life: yoga & heels |
Since I am interested in both business and balance (my chosen method being yoga), I closely follow the movement of social entrepreneurship (SE). A recent article proposed a possible distinction between SE and cultural entrepreneurship(CE). Of course I had to wrap my brain around this one. What really grabbed my attention was how the authors, stated that, "a new distinction must be made between innovations that focus on changing markets and systems and those that change hearts and minds". Aaahhhh...yesssssssss.
Last night around 11PM I opened my email and had received my weekly newsletter from Social Edge, the online community operated by the Skoll Foundation. The main topic, to my delight, was CE. I opened the discussion and felt compelled to contribute my two cents on the subject. So much so that I stayed up until 2AM crafting my response! So unlike me, but when passion is alive...
I hope I don't entirely bore you, but I thought I would share my contribution on the subject, as I hope you will see how a balanced and heart-centered approach to enterprise ties into the balance and peace we seek through yoga. I would love for you to join this conversation!
----
At first glance I love this distinction and find it useful albeit slightly confusing (as I will explain below). Just as we
separate sociology and psychology, as they are each working on different levels
of the human experience, these two types of entrepreneurship are working on
different levels of societal influence. I would say that cultural
entrepreneurship is more psychologically inclined and henceforth has the
possibility to create far more impact than that of social entrepreneurship.
Approaching an issue from the inside (or the mind/heart level) will always be
more effective and more sustainable than doing so from the outside. Although I
cannot say it is easier. In fact, it is something that takes a quality somewhat
lacking in today’s fast-paced world: patience.
And thus he issue of how to measure the impact of such
campaigns and enterprises arises. Can one measure how many hearts have been
uplifted from a sermon or a yoga class? Can one measure how a new leader
affects the livelihoods of their constituency? The answer is yes, but with
time; more time than it takes to measure how many people are now wearing shoes
or glasses. But there are indeed metrics
that can be set up and measured over time requiring investors and project
managers alike to take on a patience that does not come easily or naturally
with our number-crunching, analysis-hungry professional society. (Maybe we
should start a cultural movement to address this? Hmm)
I do not believe that CE interrupts the organic creative process of art and
writing. Who is to say that all forms of art aren’t always a message for
society, for humanity? Is it any different to paint a piece for an art gallery
or for a campaign? Can a person’s need to express themselves and their urgency
for change in the world through film, word or any other canvas be discounted as
not being entirely creative? I see no disruption here. It is for each
individual to decide how their creativity is manifested through their work
and/or leisure.
Key influencers in such movements would seem quite easy to pin down. Who has
the Twitter following? Who is selling the most books? However, anyone who has studied psychology or even philosophy (especially eastern) might argue
that it is not always as it seems who holds the key to the hearts and minds of
people. It seems this task will also fall under the somewhat ambiguous and
hard-to-pin-down category as the impact metrics. This will require an increased
level of patience but more importantly a leadership that is as good at
listening to their own hearts as they are listening to logic and reason.
Intuition, as pointed out in Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, is a highly effective
tool and when properly attuned can produce great results. I propose that within
cultural entrepreneurship it is not only that we are looking to change the
hearts and minds of people and society, but we are doing so from within
enterprises and leadership that already have these two areas aligned. And since
social entrepreneurs should also have these attributes, they too contribute to
this larger cultural change. In this I see the term “cultural entrepreneurship”
as the larger of the two types, perhaps the more important of the two, but
certainly they are in synergy.
The confusion I mentioned in opening is due to the fact that
culture is generally part of society, and so one might assume that societal
change would be the more important of the two. However, I find cultural change
far more pressing in creating lasting, sustainable change. Social entrepreneurs
address issues arising from cultural influence (example: providing glasses in a
society whose culture has not yet produced healthcare options or coverage).
Cultural entrepreneurs influence the people who comprise said cultures
(example: campaigns to spark interest in public policy). These people and their
ever changing cultures go on to influence and change the social issues
addressed by social entrepreneurs. (Now that was a mouthful!) It's both! It's synergy.
We need both so let's keep up the momentum!*
*This response has been slightly altered from original to make sense away from the original prompts.
Om tat sat!
