At the 2010 Skoll World Forum, one message rang out loud and clear: social entrepreneurship is officially sexy. Due in no small part to Jeff Skolls efforts over the past decade, the term social entrepreneur has torn its way into the mainstream lexicon and is currently redefining the way that we think about theories of change and the agents who promote them. The potential impact of such a mindshift is tremendous, and will have reverberations on the way that world-changers go about their work for decades to come.

And yet - as any political scientist will tell you - the larger a movement gets, the more inclusive and less definitive it tends to become. As more people adopt and adapt the language of social entrepreneurship, the less precise and meaningful that language becomes. What starts out as a relatively defined niche finds itself pulled into the broader, more mainstream consciousness. And in the process, it loses much of its meaning and unique perspective.

Thats exactly what I see happening to the social entrepreneurship movement. As evidenced by the 2010 Skoll World Forum, someone new to the space may be hard-pressed to delineate the differences between social entrepreneurship and general do-goodery. Sure, we all know that the entrepreneurship aspect is supposed to refer to some combination of innovative solutions, market-based approaches, the application of time-tested business principles, and the discipline of private sectorbut just how far can and should that be stretched? On the stage at this years Skoll Forum, invited speakers promoted such a broad range of interventions - many of which looked very much like traditional charity that one has to wonder where the line between social entrepreneurship and traditional aid is drawn. In the noble quest for broad adaptation and mainstream acceptance, what is lost and what is gained?

Any successful movement, when shifting from the few to the many, must necessarily become more inclusive and less dogmaticon the less important stuff. But a movement can achieve nothing if it doesnt fervently embrace a defined set of principles that it will defend come hell or highwater. Its not clear that social entrepreneurship has any shared understanding of what its own Holy Principles are, nor how to defend them when under siege.

I believe that that siege is officially upon us. It hasnt come in the form of antagonistic provokers in opposition to the tenants themselves, but rather from well-intended actors who cloak themselves in the language and co-opt it for just the kind of interventions the movement arose to counteract.

In the end, social entrepreneurship will maintain its meaning only if it understands its principles. If it doesnt, it will just become a great new way to package and brand the same old do-goodery it was trying to move us beyond.
 

I have a confession to make.  While I love the field of social entrepreneurship, I hate the term Social Entrepreneur.  I know, Mr. Skoll, I send my apologies... 

Now admittedly, Im one of those annoying people who believe that the subtleties of word choice deeply influence our subconscious. I believe that the norms we establish around words and terminologies has a powerful effect on the way we process, deconstruct, and act within our world. And thus I believe that one of our sectors predominant labels deserves some critical examination.

 
SoSocial Entrepreneur. On first glance it seems so appropriate for years the social sector has tried to battle the impression that we are all just tree-hugging, Gandhi-loving technophiles with an abundance of good intentions but a serious shortage of execution and acumen. For those of us who hate hearing, Oh, that must be really rewarding, when we tell people we work in the social change sector, using a more serious-sounding term like entrepreneur is very appealing.  The growth of social entrepreneurship as a movement that values efficiency and results has powerfully improved the state of social change.  And yet when it is all so often revolved around one almighty Social Entrepreneur, what is lost?

 
My concern with the label Social Entrepreneur is that its ego-flaming at best, and sector-defeating at worst. In a business setting, the label entrepreneur is, by definition, person-centric. It draws the attention not to the specific enterprise that is being created but to the person doing to the creating. It subtly affirms the notion (however accurate) that its the specific traits of a specific individual that matter to the success or failure of a venture. In short, its all about you.  We Americans love that, don't we?  When it comes to traditional profit-only business, no harm no foul. Calling Steve Jobs an entrepreneur if anything only reaffirms his desire to do what he was already doing - making money. Its when you put the word social in front of entrepreneur that I think you run into some problems.

 
Why, you ask?  First of all, doing something social is inherently not about you. To be focused on social outcomes means taking a specific step away from the wealth-aggrandizing paradigm and into the world of shared returns. Its making the leap from me, me, me to we, we, we.

 
And yet, the mythology of The Social Entrepreneur revolves the whole story around the individual. Through a shrewd slight-of-hand, our attention is turned away from the collective movement and toward an individual onto whom a Heros Journey is imposed. The drama of such a tale is high, but at what cost? Kings and Queens are made, and many a speaking career launchedbut what is sacrificed? What collective narrative, what real representation of holistic social change, what inclusive vision for proudly joining hands as small cogs in a big wheel?

 
I say let us embrace the field of social entrepreneurship and the multitude of tools it has brought to the discipline of social change. But let us not, through our need to glorify the individual, unconsciously belittle the efforts and impact of the coalitions of human beings behind all sustainable action.   Social change is a team sport, isnt it?