On startups and doublethink – resistance and conformity in negotiating the meaning of entrepreneurship

Startup entrepreneurship is – in the literature, in the discourse of those engaging in it, and in cultural representations of the same – presented both as resistance against prevailing corporate logics and as a path towards becoming a corporate entity. Resistance, claimed or otherwise, is not just a reaction to a perceived outrage or a power imbalance, but is in itself a constitutive part of contemporary entrepreneurship, particularly as this is culturally constructed. We study this paradox, where a discourse of resistance becomes a productive part of entrepreneurial culture, by way of a case study of a successful startup. We analyze the manner in which people working in the startup utilize ‘doublethink’ to portray the organization both as resistance to an assumed, more corporate, ‘Other’ and also as a budding corporation unto itself. By doing so, we highlight how a discourse of resistance works as a value in entrepreneurship culture as well as a productive element of the same. In our case, resistance and corporate conformity come together in a way that defies easy classification; one where notions of resistance exist as easy-to-adopt identity positions and where doublethink becomes a productive way of dealing with corporate success.     

Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape

The relationship between society, land and landscape is deeply complex. Attitudes are reflected in behaviour, notably patterns of consumption through recreational activity, as well as in expressed preferences. Society attaches great importance to land. A large proportion of the population engages directly with it, through gardening and involvement in the management of allotments, community gardens and other public spaces. There is increasing evidence of the benefits of such engagement for individuals and communities. Society's attitudes and preferences have traditionally been dominated by expert or professional views, which have evolved over time and now place emphasis on everyday as well as special landscapes, and on urban greenspace and green infrastructure as much as on rural landscapes. The general public also seems to value the countryside as well as parks and green spaces nearer to home. Public attitudes are shaped by a number of different factors. Age, social and economic status, ethnic origin, familiarity, place of upbringing and residence, particularly whether urban or rural, are especially significant. Perhaps most important are environmental value orientations. At present, society seems to be polarised. At one extreme are older, more affluent, better educated, more environmentally aware people, often in social grades AB, who are often the most active users of the countryside and greenspaces. At the other extreme are younger age groups, ethnic minorities, and those who are in the DE social grades, who are often much less engaged. These groups have very different values and attitudes. But most people need to access and enjoy different types of landscape at different times and for different purposes, accessing what has been called a ‘portfolio of places’ that is particular to each person. It is by no means clear how the various factors that influence people's attitudes and preferences will play out in the future. Society may continue to become more detached from nature and landscape, and less caring about its future. Or there could be a rekindling of society's need to engage with the land and an increased desire to ensure that all sectors of society can benefit from green spaces and rural landscapes. This is likely to require interventions through education and campaigns to change attitudes and behaviour. Whether such initiatives can be effective in the face of competing drivers of attitudinal and behavioural change and over what timescale, may well determine how society's relationships with land and landscape evolve over the next 50 years.