Reimagining ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life

ABSTRACT

This paper extends research investigating ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ by reimagining it as a broader struggle for a freer life. To do this, I draw upon Martin Hägglund’s philosophy, particularly his view of freedom as having more time to pursue activities that matter to us, and by using two little narratives as illustrative examples. This view of freedom challenges neoliberal and liberal conceptions of a freer life and advances our understanding in two areas. First, the paper illustrates ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle, and as a question of degrees, since it both holds the potential to increase the realm of freedom, thus enabling women to lead freer and more meaningful lives in specific contexts, and the danger of bolstering the realm of necessity, leading women to spend their time on activities where they only endure present ways of living or endorse neoliberal lifestyles. Second, the paper illustrates ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle since it sparks women’s spiritual freedom as they start questioning and transforming taken-for-granted ideas of who they should be and what they should do with their time. Finally, the paper contributes methodologically to research focusing on marginalized voices beyond the lead entrepreneur.

KEYWORDS:

• Entrepreneuring as emancipation
• struggle
• a freer life
• time
• potentials and dangers
• context

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS:

• SDG 1: No poverty
• SDG 5: Gender equality

Introduction

In April 2021, the United Nations published My body is my own: claiming the right to autonomy and self-determination, a report concluding that many million women live unfree lives and that their choices and practices are governed by others (UNFPA 2021). Today, many governments and global organizations, including Ashoka, the World Economic Forum, and the United Nations, promote entrepreneurship as a path to a freer life, with one area of particular support being women’s empowerment through entrepreneurship. The belief is that micro-funding, social entrepreneurship, and women entrepreneurship at large are all promising endeavours in the drive to emancipate and thus enable women and, by association, their families to lead freer lives. But does entrepreneurship always lead to a freer life? And what do we talk about when we talk about a freer life in entrepreneurship studies?

In 2009, Rindova et al. published a ground-breaking piece in which they developed the perspective of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’. In the hope of moving beyond the dominating understanding of entrepreneurship as just economic wealth creation, they urged future studies to explore entrepreneuring ‘as an emancipatory process with broad change potential’, and thus has the potential to create ‘a new set of possibilities for the entrepreneuring individual or group’ (V. Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 477). Their perspective triggered an interest among scholars, and today, emancipation is seen as a key concept for entrepreneurship theorizing (Laine and Kibler 2022; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Trivedi and Petkova 2022). However, a main problem with the existing literature is that most studies merely employ Rindova et al’.s perspective. Yet, their aim was not to offer a complete theoretical perspective but rather ‘to stimulate a conversation in the field’ (V. Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 479). I suggest that there are two issues in how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ shapes our understanding of a freer life in entrepreneurship studies, which calls for further investigation.

First, Rindova et al’.s (2009, 478) perspective on emancipation originates from Webster’s dictionary and the term’s etymology. Accordingly, they view emancipation as ‘the act of setting free from the power of another’. This has been a useful and productive conceptualization. Yet, as Ruebottom and Toubiana (2021, 1050) note, ‘the term “emancipation” is contested and has different meanings for different scholars’. For instance, in their paper, Rindova et al. (2009, 480) write that entrepreneuring can lead to breaking free from environmental, economic, social, technological, cultural, and institutional constraints. But, today, much literature focuses just on the economic aspects of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’, which risks reproducing an economized discourse and, in effect, a neoliberal view of a freer life where the main goal is seen as removing economic constraints and reaching self-actualization through work (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Laine and Kibler 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021; Verduijn and Essers 2013). But ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ also covers political changes (Calás, Smircich, and Bourne 2009; Montessori 2016; Trivedi and Petkova 2022), socio-cultural transformations (Al-Dajani et al. 2013, Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Ojediran and Anderson 2020), and existential aspirations and dreams (Benali and Villesèche 2023; Chandra 2017; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021).

Also, as Rindova et al. (2009, 480) point out, ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ takes place in specific and various environments. Accordingly, there are no universal solutions for, nor universal understandings of, emancipation (Verduijn et al. 2014, 102). Instead, ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ is context-dependent (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021). This implies that it is impossible to say beforehand whether ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ leads to a freer life for the involved women. Rather, this remains an ‘empirical question to be answered’ (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018, 877) where it is important to consider the socio-cultural circumstances (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022, 723) and the socio-economic structures (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016, 84). Thus, to advance our understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a path to a freer life, we can engage with broader and alternative conceptions of emancipation and freedom (Benali and Villesèche 2023; Laine and Kibler 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022; Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024).

Second, Rindova et al’.s (2009) definition seems to push our attention to how women can break free from the power of another. The issue is that their perspective implicitly risks promoting a liberal view of emancipation, where the main goal is personal autonomy by breaking free from prevailing constraints (Laine and Kibler 2022). However, emancipation is not just a question of emancipation ‘from’ prevailing constraints, but also a question of emancipation ‘to’, that is, ‘to inflict changes in society in a broader sense’ (Laine and Kibler 2022, 395) and thus collective emancipation (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). Also, a liberal view risks fostering an understanding where entrepreneuring either leads to emancipation, that is, the setting free from the power of another (e.g. Datta and Gailey 2012; Montessori 2016; Scott et al. 2012; Trivedi and Petkova 2022), or to oppression, that is, the not setting free from the power of another (Al-Dajani et al. 2015; Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016). However, pursuing freedom is a complicated endeavour that rather involves struggling with existing constraints endlessly (Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024). So, instead of viewing ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as ‘an all or nothing affair’ (Ojediran and Anderson 2020, 5), it can be approached as a question of degrees of freedom (Goss et al. 2011, 213), and thus as a constant struggle that holds both potentials and dangers (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Goss et al. 2011; Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Verduijn et al. 2014).

To investigate these two issues further, this paper engages with the following research question: How can we reimagine ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life? For this engagement, I draw on Martin Hägglund’s philosophy. In his work, Hägglund (2019, 21) rejects today’s dominating views of freedom, such as the pursuit of the free market (a neoliberal view) and individual liberty (a liberal view). Instead, he approaches the concept of freedom by wondering: what does it mean to be living and free? (Hägglund 2019, 22). His answer, in short, is that a freer life involves having more time to pursue activities that matter to us (Hägglund 2019, 257). Hägglund (2019) suggests that this is a struggle that takes place in the realm of necessity, where activities are seen as means to other ends, and in the realm of freedom, where activities are seen as meaningful in themselves. The aim of the struggle is simply to try to increase the realm of freedom. This view allows us to advance an understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle that holds both potentials and dangers (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Verduijn et al. 2014; Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Laine and Kibler 2022; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022), and as a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011).

Hägglund (2019, 11, italics in original) also suggests that the struggle for a freer life involves practicing one’s spiritual freedom, that is: ‘To be free, I argue, is not to be sovereign or liberated from all constraints. Rather, we are free because we are able to ask ourselves what we ought to do with our time’. Hence, the struggle for a freer life is not seen as breaking free from all constraints but rather as engaging with the question of what to do with one’s finite time and reflecting upon who one should be given one’s context. This view also allows us to advance an understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for freedom and thus beyond narrow economic conceptions (Laine and Kibler 2022; V. P. Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022), which takes place in specific contexts (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021).

To illustrate ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life, I use empirical material from a two-and-a-half-year-long ethnographic study on social entrepreneurship, and, more specifically, two little narratives from women working for a social enterprise in Uttar Pradesh, India.

‘Entrepreneuring as emancipation’

Rindova et al. (2009) coined the perspective of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ to push entrepreneurship studies beyond the dominating conception of positive economic wealth creation. To do this, they stressed that other motives are equally important to study, such as ‘how wishes for autonomy, expression of personal values, and making a difference in the world can be accomplished’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 478). Similar arguments were raised by Katz and Steyaert (2004), Steyaert and Hjorth (2006), and Calás et al. (2009), who all sought to re-frame entrepreneurship as social change activities and thus as a phenomenon that produces a variety of economic, social, cultural, political and ecological outcomes. The common ground for these works is that they eschew economic language and managerial logic by opening up alternative perspectives on entrepreneurship (Calás, Smircich, and Bourne 2009, 553).

Against this backdrop, Rindova et al. (2009, 477) define entrepreneuring as ‘efforts to bring about new economic, social, institutional, and cultural environments through the actions of an individual or group of individuals’. They stress that entrepreneuring ‘differs from the broader set of change initiatives in that it is associated with efforts to create something new – a new idea, a new thing, a new institution, a new market, a new set of possibilities for the entrepreneuring individual or group and/or for other actors in the environment’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 478). Rindova et al. (2009, 478) selected the term ‘emancipation’ since it denotes ‘the act of setting free from the power of another’. Drawing upon the concept’s etymology, they theorize three core elements which they find crucial to any emancipatory process: seeking autonomy, authoring, and making declarations. First, seeking autonomy is theorized as ‘breaking free from the authority of another’ and ‘breaking up of constraints’, such as environmental, economic, social, technological, cultural, and institutional constraints (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 480). Second, authoring is theorized as ‘defining relationships, arrangements, and rules of engagement that preserve and potentially enhance the change potential of a given entrepreneuring project’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 483). Third, making declarations is theorized as ‘unambiguous discursive and rhetorical acts regarding the actor’s intentions to create change’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 485). In short, this is what Rindova et al. (2009) talk about when they talk about ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’.

Since 2009, a steady stream of research has engaged in this specific conversation, and it has become an important perspective in entrepreneurship studies (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Trivedi and Petkova 2022). Laine and Kibler (2022, 407) even say that emancipation has become a key concept for all entrepreneurship scholars since all theorizing in entrepreneurship ‘thrives on the social imaginary of emancipation’. Radu-Lefebvre et al. (2022, 586) add that all entrepreneuring covers some form of emancipation since it ‘springs from individuals’ desire to enact their agency and challenge existing orders’. When reviewing the literature, one notices that most studies have employed Rindova et al’.s perspective to study a specific case or context. For instance, their perspective is used to understand social entrepreneurial initiatives in United Kingdom (Goss et al. 2011), women emancipation in South Africa (Scott et al. 2012), poor entrepreneurs in the coffee sector in Rwanda (Tobias, Mair, and Barbosa-Leiker 2013), displaced women at the ‘base of the pyramid’ in Jordan (Al-Dajani et al. 2015), middle-class women emancipation in Canada (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016), social movements in the Netherlands (Montessori 2016), the space endeavours of Richard Branson (Muegge and Reid 2018) and Elon Musk (Muegge and Reid 2019), women emancipation through digital entrepreneurship (Martinez Dy, Martin, and Marlow 2018), women’s journeys from poverty to emancipation in India (Trivedi and Petkova 2022), well-educated women in India taking a mid-career break (Sharma 2022), women working for a social enterprise in post-revolutionary Tunisia (Benali and Villeséche 2023), women working in the sex industry (Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021), and to study indigenous entrepreneurship in Canada (Pergelova, Angulo-Ruiz, and Dana 2021).

These studies show how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ can be employed as a perspective in quite disparate contexts and cases to discuss entrepreneurship as a path to a freer life. In the following two sections, I start unfolding ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle by discussing its many forms, potentials, and dangers.

The many forms and potentials of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’

Many of the studies in the current literature show how entrepreneuring potentially can improve the economic situation for the involved women and their families. For instance, Al-Dajani et al. (2013) show how Palestinian immigrant women in Jordan use entrepreneuring to escape poverty, and Scott et al. (2012) demonstrate how South African women also use entrepreneuring to lift themselves out of poverty. Datta and Gailey (2012) and Nachimuthu and Gunatharan (2012) discuss how entrepreneurship empowers Indian women economically, and Trivedi and Petkova (2022) add that Indian women’s earnings both contributes to the households and increases their decision-making authority. These studies also show how women invest their earnings in better education for their children (Datta and Gailey 2012; Nachimuthu and Gunatharan 2012) and even their brothers (Trivedi and Petkova 2022).

However, the potential of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ is not just about breaking free from economic constraints; it is also a struggle that concerns socio-cultural and political constraints. For example, Al-Dajani et al. (2013) show how women use entrepreneuring to elevate their status in a patriarchal society like Palestine. On a similar note, Alkhaled and Berglund (2018) discuss how women use entrepreneuring in the contexts of Saudi Arabia and Sweden to break free from gender constraints. Ojediran and Anderson (2020, 1) consider entrepreneurship’s role in challenging cultural norms in the Global South, as they found that women were no longer ‘treated as inferior and second class’. Given this, Ojediran and Anderson (2020) suggest that entrepreneuring has the potential to challenge social norms politically by fostering independence from male dominance. These studies show how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ holds the potential to break free ‘from’ prevailing constraints (Laine and Kibler 2022). But there are also studies that show how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ holds the potential ‘to’ inflict broader societal changes (Laine and Kibler 2022). For instance, Trivedi and Petkova (2022) stress that entrepreneuring has the potential to facilitate women’s mobility and independence, thus shifting family dynamics. And Nachimuthu and Gunatharan (2012) and Trivedi and Petkova (2022) note that entrepreneurship gives Indian women a voice, and that it allows them to understand their rights and engage politically and thus influencing their lives and communities in profound ways.

Moreover, ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ also covers existential struggles such as creating ‘self-confidence and hope’ (Scott et al. 2012, 563), creating new meaning in life (Chandra 2017, 657), boosting confidence and allowing more control over one’s life (Ojediran and Anderson 2020, 5), enhancing a better self-understanding through feelings of authentic and significant identities (Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021, 1064), improving self-esteem, social skills, feelings of competency, and strength (Trivedi and Petkova 2022, 377), developing one personally and professionally (Sharma 2022), making women following and affirming their dreams and visions (Benali and Villeséche 2023, 1; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022, 118), and transforming one’s life into an artistic oeuvre through ‘self-determination, resistance, self-making and even self-reflection’ (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022).

What the above studies reveal is that ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ can be understood as a broader struggle that covers many forms of emancipation, which not only has the potential to remove prevailing constraints but also to bring about large-scale social changes (Laine and Kibler 2022).

The many forms and dangers of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’

However, in the literature, several noticeable dangers have been highlighted that caution against being overly optimistic about ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a path to a freer life (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Verduijn and Essers 2013; Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016). For instance, Al-Dajani et al. (2015) show how imposed contractual conditions hinder women’s emancipation in entrepreneurship, instead leading to dependence and poverty. They also suggest that many women use entrepreneuring to ‘get by’ rather than to ‘break free’ from economic constraints (Al-Dajani et al. 2015, 727). Similarly, Trivedi and Petkova (2022) note that many women engage in entrepreneuring out of necessity, driven by unemployment and limited prospects, and thus not due to dreams. Ibáñez and Guerrero (2022) also maintain that women in vulnerable contexts lack freedom in occupational decisions and are often forced into specific roles. Rindova et al. (2009, 479) stress that entrepreneuring can be an emotional rollercoaster and that ‘visions often turn into illusions’, and Radu-Lefebvre et al. (2022, 596) highlight that suffering and anger are also part of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’. These studies cast doubts on the assumed potential of breaking free from constraints through entrepreneuring, or, at least, calls for a more modest approach that sees the struggle for a freer life as a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011).

Other scholars doubt entrepreneuring’s actual potential to inflict broader societal changes. For example, Al-Dajani et al. (2013) and Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian (2016) emphasize that entrepreneuring often fails to disrupt patriarchal structures, leaving women subordinate or oppressed. Ojediran and Anderson (2020) point out that while entrepreneuring offers some agency to challenge male hegemony and oppression, institutional barriers often hinder women’s ability to reshape their futures truly. Taking it one step further, Dey and Steyaert (2010) discuss how micro-entrepreneurship in Bangladesh unintentionally demolished old social relations, produced violent domestic conditions, and indebted the women entrepreneurs so that some of them committed suicide due to feelings of shame. These dangers risk getting lost when employing a conception of freedom that mainly focuses on the ‘breaking free’-part and the potential of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’.

A final critique against ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ comes from scholars who view the contemporary enthusiasm for entrepreneurship as a byproduct of a neoliberal ideology. For instance, Verduijn and Essers (2013, 612) highlight that a neoliberal ideology promotes the belief that entrepreneurship creates societal wealth and elevates marginalized individuals, making more governments endorse enterprise values and self-reliance. On a similar note, Alkhaled and Berglund (2018, 894) write that entrepreneurship is currently upheld as the Holy Grail for women’s emancipation. That is, through entrepreneurship, following a market logic, and removing economic constraints, women can fight unequal and unjust living conditions. Yet, a danger with this belief is that the political dimensions of leading a freer life are overlooked. Laine and Kibler (2022) theorize this political dimension as ‘emancipation to’, which concerns issues such as access to quality education (Datta and Gailey 2012), the right to voice opinions and participate in political elections (Trivedi and Petkova 2022), and governmental responsibilities and collective emancipation (Al-Dajani et al. 2013, 519). Furthermore, a neoliberal ideology and conception of freedom risk pushing the involved women into subjectivities that solely focus on personal success and well-being (Verduijn and Essers 2013). For example, women are encouraged to pursue individual liberty by managing themselves as businesses, neglecting ethical aspects and other conduct conducive to change or emancipation (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins (2022) stress that there is a clear danger that ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ promotes competition and self-interest, undermining collaboration and collective emancipation. This kind of critique risks being neglected or downplayed by studies focusing only on the potential of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’.

What the above studies show is how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ can be understood as a broader struggle that also covers many dangers and does not necessarily lead to a freer life for the involved women. To further advance our understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life, I will draw upon the work of Hägglund.

A freer life: what does it mean to be living and free?

In his book This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, philosopher Martin Hägglund undertakes two tasks. On the one hand, he sketches a new conception of freedom and, on the other, outlines a novel view of how to create a democratic and equal society. For this paper, I focus on only the former, his conception of human freedom and what it means to be living and free.

In his work, Hägglund critiques both religious and capitalistic conceptions of freedom. Nevertheless, he argues that we need to hold on to some conception of and commitment to freedom because such a notion has the critical power to identify and perceive oppressive, exploitive, and alienating living conditions, thus helping all of us to express ‘what we are trying to achieve and why it matters’ (Hägglund 2019, 21). In a nutshell, Hägglund proposes that we as humans lead free lives when we are ‘able to ask ourselves what we ought to do with our time’ (Hägglund 2019, 11, italics in original) and are ‘free to engage, transform, and recognize ourselves in the social world of which we are a part, as well as in the material interchange with nature that is necessary to sustain our lives’ (Hägglund 2021, para. 2). Thus, for Hägglund (2019, 18), the key question of freedom concerns our finite time and how to become freer to engage with meaningful activities that are guided by a purpose and existential commitment experienced as one’s own. Hägglund (2019, 23) adds that owning one’s life does not mean living a life unfettered by social, cultural, economic, and ecological constraints but acknowledging and accepting that one’s life depends on factors beyond one’s control. However, instead of feeling alienated, one affirms and attaches oneself to the life one leads. This affirmation involves recognizing and navigating specific limitations and possibilities in one’s context.

Consequently, Hägglund’s philosophical conception of freedom advances our understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ beyond narrow neoliberal (removing economic constraints) and liberal (individual liberty) conceptions of freedom (Laine and Kibler 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022; Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024), by presenting it as a broader struggle concerning having more time to pursue activities that matter to us (Hägglund 2019, 257), which takes place in a specific context (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021).

The realms of necessity and freedom: pursuing activities that matter to us

To delve further into the question of what it means to lead a freer life and the importance of time, Hägglund (2021, 22) uses the concepts of the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. As such, when discussing the realm of necessity, Hägglund refers to ‘the labor required to keep ourselves alive’ (Hägglund 2019, 22). The crux here is that all humans must perform work to sustain their lives. However, a person need not spend all her time in this realm, for, as human beings, we will always have some surplus time to ‘engage our life activity as a free activity’, since we can ask ourselves ‘what to do and if it is the right thing to do’ (Hägglund 2019, 22). This is the realm of freedom, in which a person’s activities are understood as ends in themselves and thus meaningful and valuable. Conversely, activities in the realm of necessity are merely means to other ends (Hägglund 2019, 221), such as wages that allow a person to buy necessities like food and clothes.

Understandably, all humans exist in both realms, but to different degrees. Yet, for Hägglund (2019, 223), the aim of a democratic society should be to decrease the realm of necessity and increase that of freedom, for example, by reducing forced labour and by promoting free labour performed because of a person’s commitments and values (Hägglund 2019, 25). However, what these commitments should be or why a person holds on to them is not predetermined; every person must take time to figure it out independently. Therefore, an important question becomes how to organize a society that provides time for pluralistic deliberation on ‘what makes life worth living’ (Hägglund 2019, 223). Against this backdrop, Hägglund (2019, 224) concludes, ‘[t]he more free time we have to pursue the activities that matter to us, the wealthier we are’. The realms of necessity and freedom allow us to challenge neoliberal and liberal conceptions of freedom since it moves our attention to the importance of time and the pursuit of meaningful activities (cf. Laine and Kibler 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022; Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024). These concepts also enable us to discuss ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a struggle that holds both potentials and dangers (Verduijn et al. 2014) and as a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011).

Spiritual freedom: what should I do with my time and who should I be?

Following Hägglund, there seems to be no absolute or definite answer on how to lead a freer life or what makes life worth living. Rather, the answer depends on a person’s commitments, values, and what she wants to do with her finite time, that is, on her spiritual freedom. Simply put, Hägglund (2019, 11) views spiritual freedom as the ability to ask the question of ‘what we ought to do with our time’. He continues by saying that ‘[t]he deepest reason I am spiritually free is that I can engage the question of what I should do with my time as a question. If there were a given answer to the question, I would not be spiritually free’ (Hägglund 2019, 196). For instance, a person might question her presumed calling in favour of alternative occupations (Hägglund 2019, 24). Or, she might question the normative understanding of who she is or should be, thus realizing that her identity and social role are neither natural nor forever destined, but rather that there is always a ‘possibility of transforming, contesting, or critically overturning our understanding of who we are’ (Hägglund 2019, 176). Again, when Hägglund (2019, 11) writes about a freer life, he is not imagining a person liberated from her natural or social constraints but rather a person who questions the taken-for-granted and assumes responsibility for engaging with the question of what to do with her finite lifetime. Given this, Hägglund concludes that humans need not only the right to freedom but also the material resources and education required to commit themselves to that questioning (Hägglund 2019, 23). This is an important point that is missing in neoliberal and liberal conceptions of freedom, which predominately focus on how to remove (economic) constraints and promote personal autonomy (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Laine and Kibler 2022).

Nevertheless, practicing one’s spiritual freedom comes with two downsides: existential anxiety and feelings of vulnerability. Existential anxiety brings an awareness that one could lead one’s life differently by questioning or transforming one’s present commitments (Hägglund 2019, 202), while feelings of vulnerability arise when a person realizes that one’s life could end abruptly, her valued projects could fail, and the people she loves could leave her unexpectedly, whether through illness, abandonment, or death (Hägglund 2019, 361). Consequently, when practicing one’s spiritual freedom, one must be willing to risk one’s finite lifetime, and one’s life, for the things one values (Hägglund 2019, 359). For, as Hägglund (2019, 359) points out, ‘if my life were not at risk, I could not value my life, since my life would simply be given and not subject to loss’. In short, the concept of spiritual freedom allows us to explore ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ beyond narrow economic conceptions and personal autonomy and as a broader struggle for freedom (Laine and Kibler 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022) that essentially concerns what to do with one’s finite time (Hägglund 2019).

Methodology

A narrative approach and illustrative examples

To study ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life, this paper draws upon entrepreneurship research using a narrative approach (e.g. Alkahaled and Berglund 2018; Cunningham et al. 2022; Downing 2005; Gartner 2007; Hjorth and Steyaert 2004; Steyaert 1997; Verduijn and Essers 2013). Narrative research departs from the premise ‘that there is no method, strictly speaking in social science’, instead ‘all there is are other works as sources of inspiration, an array of various techniques, and a systematic reflection on the work that is being done’ (Czarniawska 1997, vi). Hence, research involves gathering and creating texts while documenting a particular social practice (Czarniawska 1997, vii). Accordingly, in the paper, the empirical material is not treated as a mirror of reality but as a source of inspiration for novel theoretical insights (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007). Following Alvesson and Kärreman (2007), I primarily see my empirical material as illustrative examples to reimagine ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life. Costas and Fleming (2009) write that illustrative examples fit extra well in papers exploring novel theoretical directions or developing new concepts. So, the illustrative examples in the analysis are primarily intended to clarify this paper’s theoretical arguments (cf. Johnsen, Olaison, and Sørensen 2018).

Using little narratives

In this connection, I find using little narratives as illustrative examples extra compelling since they embrace complexity and uniqueness over simplicity and generalizability. Dey and Steyaert (2010) introduced the concept of little narratives in entrepreneurship studies, spurred by a desire to offer an alternative to the grand narrative dominating (social) entrepreneurship literature and portraying entrepreneurship and social change as an utterly harmonious, messianic arrangement. They suggest collecting little narratives to depart from that grand narrative and instead delve into contextual complexity, ambiguities, and paradoxes.

The two little narratives used in this paper as illustrative examples come from an ethnographic study on entrepreneurship as social change conducted between 2012 and 2016. The study sought to create a deeper understanding of entrepreneurship as social change by exploring a social initiative within a multinational company. Part of a larger sustainability strategy, the initiative specifically endeavoured to support women’s empowerment through collaborations with social entrepreneurs worldwide. The ethnographic research entailed visiting the social entrepreneurs in their home countries and interviewing the managers and women workers who ran the social enterprises. This methodological choice thus follows research that explores ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ beyond the lead entrepreneur (Benali and Villesèche 2023). The interviews focused on their lives, how they lived before joining the given social entrepreneur, and how their lives changed due to their involvement in social entrepreneurship.

Following Dey and Steyaert (2010), I see three reasons little narratives are useful. First, when collecting little narratives from the women workers, I avoid the risk of representing only the powerful and dominant part of a given project, that is, just the lead social entrepreneur (Benali and Villéseche 2023). Second, by allowing marginalized voices, the women workers, to be heard, I also respect and show their alterity. For instance, a woman’s struggle for a freer life in India does not necessarily entail mimicking the struggle of a liberal Western woman (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). Instead, she should be able to express what she finds worthwhile in her life. Third, little narratives allow me to explore life’s prosaic and unfinalizable sides. Most people seem to struggle for a freer life in their daily activities and not in some grand and revolutionary project. The point here is that women struggle for a freer life in various ways, depending on the historical, temporal, institutional, spatial, and social context in which it takes place (Ojediran and Anderson 2020). So, in this paper, I am not seeking to paint an exhaustive picture of the two women’s lives and their struggles for a freer life but rather to bring forth a new theoretical direction on ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’. This means that I, to a certain degree, have violated the uniqueness of the two women, but this seems to be an unavoidable part of all academic writing (Rhodes and Carlsen 2018).

Doing interviews and representing others

In the original ethnographic work, I conducted 32 interviews with people somehow involved in the social initiative I was studying, 10 of which were with women who worked at various social enterprises. The interviews lasted 20 to 45 minutes, and the central theme concerned how their work at the social enterprise had changed their lives. To inquire into this theme, I asked the women to tell me about their backgrounds, current life situations, dreams and wishes, challenges, and general experiences from working at the social entrepreneur. I conducted the interviews in the women’s native language with the help of appointed interpreters. I asked them to translate the women’s responses as minutely as possible, but their success in this endeavour is hard to measure. Indeed, this linguistic challenge hints at the impossibility of pursuing objective truths in social science (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007). Even if the interpreters impeccably passed on the women’s words, it would still be insufficient to consider interviews as windows to a fixed reality. That is, a person is unlikely to fully explain their intentions, actions, and experiences, as different levels of interpretation are always at play in social science (Czarniawska 1997).

Of the 10 interviews, I simply looked for two narratives that could help me to illustrate ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a struggle for a freer life in interesting ways (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007; Radu-Lefebvre and Hytti 2022). Thus, I looked for narratives that covered both potentials and dangers, and broader struggles for a freer life, that is, beyond economic motives. I also looked for narratives from the same place, Uttar Pradesh, since it would make it easier to contextualize the women’s struggles (Ojediran and Anderson 2020). Again, following Alvesson and Kärreman (2007, 1265), the main reason for using these little narratives as illustrative examples is to ‘enhance our ability to challenge, rethink, and illustrate’ ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a struggle for a freer life.

Reimagining ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life

Background: struggling for a freer life in Uttar Pradesh, India

A first step to reimagining ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life is to consider some of the basic living conditions surrounding the two women of this paper, Prema and Aesha. This specific context both constrains and enables their struggles (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022; Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016; Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021). Accordingly, this background description gives us a more ‘realistic sense of the possibilities of entrepreneurship as emancipation’ (Baker and Welter 2020, 25).

Uttar Pradesh is India’s largest state and has a population of about 200 million, 155 million of which live in small, rural villages with about 500 residents per community. Uttar Pradesh faces many challenges, its widespread poverty being among the greatest. In 2010, 37.7% of the population (75 million) lived in poverty, earning less than USD 2.00 daily. Although India’s economy has progressively grown over the last two decades, thus becoming the world’s fifth largest, Uttar Pradesh lags behind the rest of the country, ranking 29th out of 29 states, both economically and in terms of human development, including health care, education, equality, and general sustainability goals (Maurya and Kanaujiya 2020). The people of Uttar Pradesh are suffering from what should be curable and preventable diseases, a lack of healthcare staff and centres, and a poor health infrastructure (Kaur and Mishra 2017). Around 380,000 children under five die annually due to malnutrition and diarrhoea (Unicef 2023). Adding to this hardship, 42% of households in rural Uttar Pradesh have no access to electricity, and a mere 1% use appliances such as washing machines, air conditioners, and microwaves (Phadke, Park, and Abhyankar 2019). As in India, generally, Uttar Pradesh’s groundwater is depleted, and its water supplies are poor, leading to food and water scarcity (Mukherjee and Bhanja 2019).

Unemployment is rampant in Uttar Pradesh, with less than 10% of women having employment (India Spend 2020). Women are often prevented from making money because they must care for their homes and families (Herbert et al. 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many women lost their jobs and earnings, which drained their savings and assets and threw them into food insecurity, social isolation, and mobility loss (Agarwal 2021). In other words, there are few and uncertain livelihood options for Prema and Aesha in Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, women in Uttar Pradesh face severe inequalities, including restrictive gender norms, limited employment opportunities, and lower education levels. A significant literacy gap exists between genders, with 24% of women aged 15–24 being illiterate compared to 13% of men in the same age group (Herbert et al. 2020). Despite legislation against child marriage, 21% of young women in Uttar Pradesh are married before turning 18. These disparities adversely affect women’s health and well-being (Herbert et al. 2020). Moreover, many women and children in Uttar Pradesh are subjected to sexual exploitation and trafficking, often forced into labour, begging, organ selling, or drug trafficking (Burns, Chen, and Stoklosa 2021). Uttar Pradesh ranks second nationally in domestic crimes against women, including rape, abduction, dowry-related deaths, mental and physical abuse, and sexual harassment (Edström, Shahrokh, and Singh 2015, 6). These are some of the harsh circumstances that Prema and Aesha face daily and thus form the basis of their life opportunities (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021).

Social entrepreneurship is one way to face these challenges and thus struggle for a freer life in Uttar Pradesh. The social enterprise in this paper is a women’s cooperative, where all involved women are shareholders, and the primary aim is to empower women. The women work in small producer companies and self-help groups in the various villages of Uttar Pradesh, where they mainly produce sewing and textile products. Today, the social enterprise is part of Rangustra, a community-owned craft company that engages more than a thousand artisans in rural areas. Rangustra’s mission is to ‘ensure sustainable livelihoods for artisans and farmers by creating top quality handmade products based on the principles of fair trade and a celebration of India’s rich craft heritage’ (rangustra.com). The two women I interviewed, Prema and Aesha, both worked for this social enterprise and were thus part of its broader struggle for women’s emancipation. When I met Prema, aged 28, she had just become the director of the local producer company. She lived with her husband and two children in a village near the sewing centre, about 6 kilometres away. Aesha had just turned 21 and lived close to the sewing centre in an extended family consisting of her parents, two brothers, a sister, her uncle, and his family. By the time of the interview, she had worked at the social enterprise for almost a year, joining the self-help group after finishing a bachelor’s degree in home science and textile production.

Struggling for a freer life in the realms of necessity and freedom

To continue to reimagine ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life, I now illustrate it as a struggle that takes place in the realms of necessity and freedom. The potential of entrepreneuring is that it allows Prema and Aesha to pursue activities that matter to them. However, as we will see, the danger is that it bolsters them into the realm of necessity where they spend most of their finite time on activities that merely keep them alive.

Given the living conditions in Uttar Pradesh, a major reason why Prema and Aeesha work at the social enterprise is that they can earn money and improve their financial situation. For instance, Prema says that she uses the money to sustain and improve her family’s everyday living, that is, to buy better clothes and put her children into better schools:

First it used to be one earning member in the family, which was their husbands, and it would be a gross salary of six to seven thousand rupees. And now with their earnings they [her family] have a better living. They can buy the clothes they want to. They can give their children an English education in the schools. Prema (Interpreter’s translation)

On a similar note, Aesha mentions that her job at the social enterprise provides her with a higher income, which she spends on necessities and thus contributes to the family and the running of the home:

She says that it also given her increased incomes, so that, basic necessities at home, she is able to get for her home/ … /And it has also helped that she gets able to contribute to the family, to the running of the home. And she says that it has improved our living quality of our life. Aesha (Interpreter’s translation)

Hence, we see how entrepreneuring seems to hold the potential of enabling Prema and Aesha, and their families, to live longer and better lives and thus increase their realms of freedom (Hägglund 2019, 6). That is, they can transform their own lives, and the lives of their families, by engaging in entrepreneuring, which provides them with steady jobs and fixed incomes in an otherwise poor context (Datta and Gailey 2012; Nachimuthu and Gunatharan 2012; Scott et al. 2012; Trivedi and Petkova 2022).

In the above accounts, we can also highlight a danger of entrepreneuring, which neoliberal and liberal conceptions risk neglect. Because both Prema and Aesha use their money to buy necessities, this suggests that they must spend most of their time in the realm of necessity, where labour is seen as a requirement to ‘keep ourselves alive’ (Hägglund 2019, 22). Also, since Prema and Aesha earn only just above the Indian minimum wage, they need to work a lot and thus spend their finite time improving their lives on a rather basic level. This, too, implies that they spend most of their time in the realm of necessity, where activities are performed as a means to other ends (Hägglund 2019, 221). Consequently, a danger is that they are just getting by rather than breaking free from economic constraints (Al-Dajani et al. 2015). Or that they keep working in the social enterprise due to necessity, unemployment, and limited prospects (Trivedi and Petkova 2022), which is something entirely other than a freer life filled with meaningful activities (Hägglund 2019). This insight supports the argument that a danger with ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ is that it risks reproducing already existing socio-economic inequalities and injustices (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016).

However, one could also view Prema and Aesha’s struggles through a more optimistic lens, as their jobs seem to allow them to pursue activities that matter to them and thus expand their realms of freedom. For instance, Prema says that her job at the social enterprise allows her to escape her destiny of working in farming.

From childhood, they have been helping their father and their husbands in farming, and they do not like doing it, because it is quite a hectic job. So this is, you know, they feel that it is good for them and they really like doing it. It is an escape from farming, so they like coming here. Prema (Interpreter’s translation)

She stresses that she prefers to work in a social enterprise rather than farming. Farming in Uttar Pradesh is harsh and stressful, but still the most common livelihood in Uttar Pradesh, with 47% of the population relying on farming to make their living (Gulati, Terway, and Hussain 2021). Yet, three out of four farmers do not earn enough to provide for themselves or their families, instead falling below the poverty line (Singh 2013). Accordingly, life as a farmer risks bolstering Prema into the realm of necessity, where she spends most of her time on activities that are meant for other ends, such as providing for her family (Hägglund 2019, 221). But thanks to her job at the social enterprise, Prema’s realm of freedom expands, to some degree (Goss et al. 2011), and she manages to escape a predetermined occupation for women in this context (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022) and take control of her life (Ojediran and Anderson 2020). Beyond offering an escape from farming, the job also expands her realm of freedom by boosting Prema’s confidence and raising more respect from her husband and family:

Because she is very happy, she feels that there has been a drastic change because of her earning in the home. Her husband has started respecting her, she is more confident today./ … /She started meeting people. Prema (Interpreter’s translation)

These two examples illustrate that entrepreneuring has the potential to enable Prema to lead a freer life since she can pursue activities that matter (more) to her (Hägglund 2019), and that entrepreneuring elevates her social status (Al-Dajani et al. 2013), helps her to grow as a human being (Trivedi and Petkova 2022), and thus to transform personally and professionally (Sharma 2022). Still, one could also see that Prema’s struggle for a freer life follows neoliberal ideals of self-actualization through work (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018), which disregards other activities and lifepaths (Hägglund 2019).

When I ask Aesha about how her life has changed since joining the social enterprise, she smiles and says:

So basically, she says that, first, because it has opened up her world./ … /She says at home she feels very claustrophobic. She likes to come here; her whole day passes very well here./ … /She says that it has given her mobility. So she comes and goes. Earlier – she – her parents were always asking ‘where are you going? Aesha (Interpreter’s translation)

Aesha stresses that her job ‘has opened up her world’, which clearly suggests that her realm of freedom has expanded. She now gets out of her house, where she once felt claustrophobic, and her mobility has generally improved because her parents no longer control her every move (cf. Trivedi and Petkova 2022). Aesha elaborates on this new life situation as follows:

She says, I do not know why, but I like it a lot here. Whenever I come here I am willing to work for as long as it is needed, I never feel tired. She says, like, you do not get tired because, you know, we’re working, talking, laughing, so it’s not tiring. Aesha (Interpreter’s translation)

So, she cannot say why she likes coming to the social enterprise; she just does. In the interview, she adds that she prefers spending her time there rather than at home, where she would be responsible for various housework, which again indicates that her realm of freedom is expanding since she can pursue activities she experiences as meaningful (Hägglund 2019), it gives her mobility (Trivedi and Petkova 2022), and allows her to take more control of her life (Ojediran and Anderson 2020).

But, similarly to Prema, her self-actualization happens through her work (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). For instance, Aesha’s answer, and especially the phrase ‘I am willing to work for as long as it is needed’, can be interpreted as she spends most of her finite lifetime on activities that are merely meant for other ends (Hägglund 2019, 221). This casts doubt on whether entrepreneuring is enough to disrupt patriarchal structures (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016) or institutional barriers such as low salaries (Ojediran and Anderson 2020). This also reveals the limits of neoliberal and liberal conceptions of freedom and the importance of offering some social welfare system (Hägglund 2019). Furthermore, this insight shows that it is impossible to separate the realms of necessity and freedom. Rather, all humans struggle within specific and existing constraints, which defies neoliberal and liberal conceptions of freedom where the aim is to remove or break free from constraints (Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024). Instead, the struggle for a freer life seems to be a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011, 213).

Struggling for a freer life by practicing one’s spiritual freedom

To push our understanding of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life further, I now illustrate how entrepreneuring also has the potential to allow Prema and Aesha to practice their spiritual freedom, that is, asking questions about what they should do with their finite time and reflect upon who they should be. Yet, as we will see, the danger is that entrepreneuring drives them into neoliberal and liberal conceptions of a freer life, and that entrepreneuring is not enough to support them in their struggles for freer lives.

Recalling the harsh context of Uttar Pradesh, we now return to Prema who earlier said that she prefers her life and vocation at the social enterprise above her life and vocation as a farmer. She elaborates on this topic as follows.

And, but she feels that, you know, the oldest generation in the villages will still have that hiccup of getting out of the houses. But the younger is all set to move. And she feels that if they do not change then the country will not change. So the change has to start from here./ … /But it will take some time. Prema (Interpreter’s translation)

Here, we see how Prema chooses to defy the older generation, who still have some hiccups with getting out of the house. Hence, by working at the social enterprise, Prema practices her spiritual freedom as she questions any predetermined answers on what she should do with her finite time or who she should be (Hägglund 2019, 24). Rather, she recognizes that this is her finite life (Hägglund 2019), not her parents’ or grandparents’, and by putting her own life at risk and pursuing what matters to her, we see how entrepreneuring has the potential to help her question Uttar Pradesh’s prevailing political, social and cultural norms (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022; Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016). Yet, Prema stresses that getting more women out of the house will take time (cf. Ojediran and Anderson 2020). This long-time vision can also be understood as a sign of her spiritual freedom as she can project herself into a different future (Hägglund 2019, 200) – a future where she can live her life more fully and deliberately and thus pursue her ambitions and dreams (Benali and Villesèche 2023; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022). Prema’s struggle also indicates that it is sometimes necessary to destroy old ways of living to lead a freer life (Dey and Steyaert 2010), and the importance of voicing one’s visions to accomplish emancipation (Trivedi and Petkova 2022). During the interview, Prema stresses that the social enterprise is part of a collective movement where the aim is to reach as many women as possible. This implies that ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ might hold some potential to foster collaboration and collective emancipation as well (cf. Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022).

Still, when I ask Prema what a better future means to her, she answers as follows:

They feel that they should have more production orders coming in, which will help in earning better, and a better education, a better livelihood, better respect at home from their husbands, better life for their children. Prema (Interpreter’s translation)

Prema’s answer is understandable, especially given the living conditions in Uttar Pradesh. However, it is also possible to see her answer as an example of how her identity and dreams are trapped in an economized and neoliberal discourse (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). A better future primarily means getting more orders, earning more money, and improving her family’s living conditions. Put differently, she treats her life and finite time as means to other ends (Hägglund 2019, 221). From this perspective, Prema’s engagement at the social enterprise does not offer her the type of a freer life where she can engage with her life ‘as a free activity’, which is to say, ask her herself what to do and ‘if it is the right thing to do’ (Hägglund 2019, 22). Rather, her engagement can be seen as she struggles for more freedom by managing her life as a business and reaching self-actualization through work (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). The danger is that entrepreneuring might force her into a neoliberal lifestyle where earning more money is promoted as the highest good (Verduijn and Essers 2013), which neglects other dreams and aspirations (Hägglund 2019).

If we now return to the excerpt where Aesha’s said that her job has ‘opened up her world’, we can see how entrepreneuring has triggered her spiritual freedom since she engages with the question of what to do with her time as well as reflects upon who she should be (Hägglund 2019). The job has made her realized that she can talk to elder people, go outside her home, and earn her own money, which boosts her self-confidence (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Scott et al. 2012, 563), improves her social skills and feelings of competence (Trivedi and Petkova 2022, 377), and making her grow personally and professionally (Sharma 2022). Yet, another difficulty of practicing one’s spiritual freedom surfaces in Aesha’s struggle. Because Aesha’s father is sick with diabetes, which worries her grandmother, who wonders how much longer he can provide for Aesha. Therefore, Aesha’s family is looking for a bridegroom who could become her future provider, a common tradition in Uttar Pradesh (Herbert et al. 2020). All this distresses Aesha:

There is also a little bit of worry that, here when she earns the money, she keeps some for herself and she gives the rest at home. So she says if I get married then they might not allow me to give the money here, so I would have to give them back there./…/She says that basically, you know, like now she does not have home responsibilities, her mother is at home. But there she will be expected to take on responsibility of running that home, whether it is cooking, cleaning, and children, you know, as a house, as daughter-in- law. Then she is also not sure if, how they will, see her coming here, if she is close-by. Whether they will be happy about it, allow me or not allow me. She does not like it. Aesha (Interpreter’s translation)

The crucial insight here is that Aesha’s life might take a turn she dislikes. She does not know whether her new husband and family will allow her to stay at the social enterprise, nor if she will be allowed to keep her earnings. Besides, life as a daughter-in-law who takes care of the cooking, cleaning, and childminding is not an exciting life trajectory; she would rather stay at the social enterprise and finish her studies. Aesha is indeed practicing her spiritual freedom by questioning the taken-for-granted lifestyle and the normative understanding of who she ought to be (Hägglund 2019, 24). She also recognizes that this is her life by deliberating on the question of what is worth doing with her finite time (Hägglund 2019, 359. Hence, Aesha is struggling to lead a freer life through self-determination, self-making, and resistance (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022, 584). However, the economic, social, and cultural conditions that bind her to her present way of living are too strong (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022; Ojediran and Anderson 2020). Thus, there is a danger that these conditions hinder her from reaching the potential of leading a freer life, and instead thrust her into a life situation of broken dreams and suffering (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022). Her existential anxiety is noticeable as she knows she could lead her life differently but is not allowed to. This equally reveals the vulnerability of struggling for a freer life since it shows that her life, and what she presently pursues, can end abruptly (Hägglund 2019).

Aesha’s struggle thus reveals the limits of neoliberal and liberal conceptions of freedom. Her engagement in entrepreneuring might remove certain economic constraints and provide her with a certain level of personal autonomy. But her struggle for a freer life requires the support of institutions that provide social welfare (Hägglund 2019). Now, her father’s disease turns into her personal responsibility instead of the state or the local community (Al-Dajani et al. 2013). Aesha’s struggle confirms the danger of viewing entrepreneurship as the only path to a freer society (Verduijn and Essers 2013; Alkhaled and Berglund 2018) since it downplays governmental responsibilities to destroy old and unjust structures (Al-Dajani et al. 2013, 519).

Discussion

This paper departed from a general interest in whether entrepreneurship always leads to a freer life and what we talk about when we talk about a freer life in entrepreneurship studies. I argued that Rindova et al’.s (2009) perspective of emancipation has become heavily influential and shapes our present understanding of freedom. I then suggested that there are two issues in how we currently employ their perspective to understand and theorize a freer life entrepreneurship research. That is, much research focuses on an economic conception of emancipation or on individuals who break free from prevailing constraints in their lives. These studies implicitly or explicitly promote and reproduce neoliberal (removal of economic constraints) and liberal conceptions (personal autonomy) of freedom in entrepreneurship studies. Yet, these conceptions offer a limited understanding of freedom and disregard the complexity of a freer life (Laine and Kibler 2022; V. P. Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022; Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024). Given this, I set out to re-imagine ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life. Drawing upon Hägglund’s (2019, 257) work, and his idea of a freer life as having the time to pursue activities that matter, this paper offers an alternative understanding of freedom in entrepreneurship studies. This conception of freedom was elaborated further through the concepts of the realms of necessity and freedom, and spiritual freedom. This theoretical shift makes two wider contributions to research on ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’.

First, through the concept of the realms of necessity and freedom, the paper illustrates how we can understand ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a struggle that holds both potential and dangers (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Verduijn et al. 2014), and is a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011). There are no straightforward answers to whether Aesha and Prema’s entrepreneuring leads to freer lives. Instead, the concept of the realms of necessity and freedom allows us to realize that they will keep struggling in both realms throughout their lives, as most people do. The potential we saw was that entrepreneuring expands their realm of freedom by providing them with a steady income and a better living standard (Datta and Gailey 2012; Nachimuthu and Gunatharan 2012; Scott et al. 2012; Trivedi and Petkova 2022), elevates their social status among their families and local communities (Al-Dajani et al. 2013), boosts their confidence (Ojediran and Anderson 2020), and offers them more meaningful jobs than the common occupation of farming in Uttar Pradesh (Benali and Villesèche 2023; Chandra 2017). However, the concept of the realms of necessity and freedom also allows us to understand a major danger of ‘entrepreneuring emancipation’. Because we saw how entrepreneuring might push Prema and Aesha to spend most of their finite time on activities that only sustain themselves and their families. This suggests that entrepreneuring risks bolstering them in the realm of necessity since they engage with entrepreneuring due to necessity (Trivedi and Petkova 2022) or to get by (Al-Dajani et al. 2015). Put differently, they waste their finite time on activities that they do not find meaningful per se. This is why Hägglund (2019, 237) argues that his idea of freedom ‘demands that we overcome the social form of wage labor’. Future studies can explore this suggestion by exploring lifepaths beyond wage labour, such as political projects, art projects, and caring for one’s family.

Although entrepreneuring might not lead to the desired level of emancipation (Verduijn and Essers 2013), we still saw how Prema and Aesha’s struggles allowed them to lead better lives than before (Hägglund 2019). This underlines that the struggle for a freer life does not involve any ‘clear-cut decision[s] and behaviour [s] of “breaking free” from authority and “breaking up” perceived constraints’ (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022, 597), but rather is a question of degrees (Goss et al. 2011), and that most of the time only a few lifepaths are possible in specific contexts (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Verduijn and Essers 2013). A similar point is made in organization studies as Thaning et al. (2024, 3) stress that freedom ‘is not merely about having opportunities or avoiding constraints, but rather about how individuals engage with these constraints’. Put differently, leading a freer life is not a project that can be finalized once and for all, but rather a constant struggle to live longer, better, and more meaningful given one’s circumstances (Hägglund 2019). This view challenges liberal conceptions of freedom, which mainly highlight the removal of constraints to reach personal autonomy (Hägglund 2019).

Second, through the concept of spiritual freedom, the paper illustrates how we can theorize ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life and thus beyond narrow economic conceptions (Benali and Villesèche 2023; Laine and Kibler 2022; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022). As Prema and Aesha’s struggles show, ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ has the broader potential to encourage women to explore and question who they should be and what they should do with their finite time, thereby questioning old ways of living (Ojediran and Anderson 2020) and starting to imagine different futures (Laine and Kibler 2022). For instance, Aesha’s anxiety about the arranged marriage suggests that her finite lifetime is what ultimately matters in her pursuit of a freer life (Hägglund 2019). She does not want to conform to old cultural traditions but rather be allowed to decide over her time, life, and the things that matter to her. In fact, her struggle illustrates Hägglund’s argument that the more ‘time we have to pursue the activities that matter to us, the wealthier we are’ (Hägglund 2019, 224). Accordingly, the concept of spiritual freedom allows us to see how ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ is not just a struggle for more money or breaking free from economic constraints but also about hope (Scott et al. 2012), dreams (Benali and Villesèche 2023), identity (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Benali and Villesèche 2023; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021), and meaning (Chandra 2017). It also sheds light on the possibility of exploring the question of time in entrepreneurship studies from a philosophical perspective (cf. Holt and Johnsen 2019; Johnsen and Holt 2023).

Furthermore, Aesha’s struggle, unpredictable future, and vulnerability make it impossible to say whether entrepreneuring is enough to help her to lead a freer life or not (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016). This underlines the significance of not downplaying the responsibilities of governments (Al-Dajani et al. 2013) or approaching entrepreneurship as the holy grail and, thus, as the only path to a freer life (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). To avoid an overly focus on enterprising individuals and personal responsibility (Ojediran and Anderson 2020, 2), a more relational and collective conception of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ offers an interesting path forward (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Benali and Villesèche 2023). For instance, Prema’s comment on the importance of reaching more and more women reveals the need for more complex conceptions of freedom, which does not focus on individual liberty but also covers collective emancipation and how to inflict broader societal changes (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018; Laine and Kibler 2022). Future studies can explore further how to supplement the pursuit of individual freedom with institutions of social welfare that acknowledge our vulnerability and reliance on one another (Hägglund 2019, 11).

Moreover, Hägglund’s suggestion that one needs to be willing to risk one’s life sounds somewhat heroic and individualistic and thus echoes old portrays of the entrepreneur who takes sole responsibility for her life, which has been criticized from several perspectives (Ahl 2006; Jones and Spicer 2005; Steyaert and Katz 2004). Actually, this aspect of Hägglund’s conception of freedom risks reproducing neoliberal and liberal conceptions of (Thaning, Gersel, and Pedersen 2024). For example, as Aesha’s struggle with her sick father reveals, risking one’s life is not always achievable or desirable, which indicates that her personal responsibility needs to be supplemented by some form of governmental or collective responsibility (Al-Dajani et al. 2013; Alkhaled and Berglund, 2018). On a similar note, another danger is that the present celebration of entrepreneuring pushes women into liberal and neoliberal conceptions of who they should be and what they should do with their finite time. That is, these conceptions trigger them to primarily care about personal autonomy, promote work as the main path to self-actualization, and make them view the struggle for a freer life as a personal concern (Alkhaled and Berglund, 2018; Verduijn and Essers 2013; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022). We saw this danger in Prema’s struggle, as she envisioned a better life as ‘getting more orders’ and thus spending her finite lifetime working more. Having said that, the concept of spiritual freedom also allows us to explore the activities and things that women in various contexts find meaningful and thus are prepared to spend their finite lifetime on (Hägglund 2019, 220). Put differently, the concept of spiritual freedom offers a possibility to engage in pluralistic deliberation on ‘what makes life worth living’ (Hägglund 2019, 223), which takes us beyond economic conceptions of a freer life in entrepreneurship studies (cf. Laine and Kibler 2022; Rindova, Srinivas, and Martins 2022).

The importance of pluralistic deliberation on a meaningful life also suggests that ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ is an inevitably context-dependent struggle (Ojediran and Anderson 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022; Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021). Uttar Pradesh is a place characterized by poverty, few jobs, low salaries, women inequality, structural injustices, and oppressive cultural traditions (Edström, Shahrokh, and Singh 2015; Maurya and Kanaujiya 2020). These contextual conditions hinder and enable certain forms of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ to take place in Uttar Pradesh (Radu-Lefebvre et al. 2022). In other words, Prema and Aesha’s struggles for freer lives are not empty sheets but already moulded by this specific place and time. For example, we saw how Prema and Aesha’s struggles were influenced by their families, local culture, and local institutions (Ibáñez and Guerrero 2022, 723) and harsh socio-economic pre-conditions (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016, 84). Their struggles highlight that there is no universal solution or understanding of how to lead a freer life (Ruebottom and Toubiana 2021; Verduijn et al. 2014). A freer life for a woman in Uttar Pradesh does not necessarily mean the same as a freer life for a woman in Sweden, China, Senegal, Australia, or Brazil. This insight opens a final critique of Hägglund’s work. Namely, his conception of freedom and argument is based on a secular and Western worldview. Future research could enrich our understanding of what a meaningful life can mean by including religious accounts (Smith, McMullen, and Cardon 2021) or interviewing women who choose not to engage in entrepreneuring due to specific socio-cultural values. Perhaps this could produce a decolonial understanding of a freer life in entrepreneurship studies (Benali and Villesèche 2023).

By using little narratives, the paper contributes methodologically by adding to research that explores ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ beyond the lead entrepreneur (Benali and Villesèche 2023). In the paper, I theorize Prema and Aesha as agents of their emancipation (Benali and Villesèche 2023). That is, I view Prema and Aesha’s struggles as entrepreneuring and thus as ‘efforts to bring about new economic, social, institutional, and cultural environments through the actions of an individual or group of individuals’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009, 477). Thus, Prema and Aesha’s little narratives offer unique insights into how life looks in this specific context and how the struggle for a freer life unfolds for these particular women (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). Yet, the paper also illustrates the difficulty of listening to marginalized voices (Rhodes and Carlsen 2018), since it is my interpretation and the work of Hägglund that are brought forward. Future researchers can engage with different methodologies to learn from marginalized voices in new ways (cf. Bell and Sengupta 2021).

Conclusion

Entrepreneurship is seen worldwide as a tool and lifepath that can enable women to lead freer lives. In the entrepreneurship literature, this topic is increasingly explored through the perspective of ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ (Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009). In this paper, I sought to extend this conversation by reimagining ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle for a freer life. Using a narrative approach and the work of Hägglund (2019), I discussed ‘entrepreneuring as emancipation’ as a broader struggle to have more time to pursue activities that matter, which takes place in the realms of necessity and freedom, and manifests as a practice of spiritual freedom.

The first practical implication of this paper is that a host of structural changes are required to support women in pursuing freer lives; it is not enough with just entrepreneurship (Alkhaled and Berglund 2018). For instance, to actualize their spiritual freedom, these women must have the opportunity to pursue an education or be given the time to deliberate on what they want to do with their lives and what matters to them. This requires a social welfare system and democratic institutions that can support and provide this kind of space (Hägglund 2019), but also the destruction of patriarchal structures (Ojediran and Anderson 2020), and reducing socio-economic injustices (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016). A second implication of this paper is that the struggle for a freer life requires a non-stop scrutinizing of how to organize society best and where entrepreneurship is seen as just one of many possible paths. For instance, if the trend from global organizations such as Ashoka, World Economic Forum, and United Nations, and national governments to stimulate and promote entrepreneurship as a path to a freer life remains, they need to understand that their programmes risk providing women with jobs that barely cover their necessities, and instead of expanding their realms of freedom, these programmes keep them in the realm of necessity by exploitation and injustices (Jennings, Jennings, and Sharifian 2016; Verduijn and Essers 2013). To help women lead freer lives, a free and democratic society should support women in pursuing activities they find meaningful in themselves and where their values spur them to commit freely to specific projects (Hägglund 2019).

Acknowledgments

I want to express my gratitude to Prema and Aesha, who generously gave their time and shared their narratives. I also want to thank the reviewers for their excellent, constructive, and thoughtful comments. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the editor, Professor Miruna Radu-Lefebvre, who has been helpful and supportive throughout the whole process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work has been funded by Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse Grant number [W19-0033].