The Paradox Between Individual Professionalization and Dependence on Social Contexts and Professional Scenes

Drafting Your Career in the Sectors of Creative Industries
Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

This article aims to discuss attempts to achieve a professional career within the creative industries. The key question is: How do entrepreneurs in creative industries invent strategies to cope with the paradox between individual professionalization and dependence on social contexts and professional scenes. The paper refers to the striking moment in which the high proportion of factual micro-entrepreneurial professions emerged without direct governmental support. Since a few years, the status of entrepreneurs in the creative industries is associated by a highly ambiguous situation: the newly invented catchphrase “new entrepreneurship” alludes to individualized marketing strategies, self-promotion and social hardships on the one side, but also to skillful alternation between unemployment benefit, temporary jobs, self-employment structures and new temporary network coalitions on the other. Contributing to this discussion, I bring forward the argument that the conceptualization of the term “scene” helps to shed light on action logics by cultural entrepreneurs caught in rather paradoxical circumstances. I will demonstrate and compare the various kinds of entrepreneurial embeddedness and the respective structural paradoxes in two urban settings: Berlin and Leipzig).

Keywords

Professionalisation Entrepreneurship Scenes Berlin Leipzig 

References

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antcliff, V., Saundry, R., & Stuart, M. (2007). Networks and social capital in the UK television industry: The weakness of weak ties. Human Relations, 60, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspers, P., & Darr, A. (2011). Trade shows and the creation of market and industry. The Sociological Review, 59, 758–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (2011). The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research of the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bude, H. (2001). Generation Berlin. Internationaler Merve-Diskurs (Vol. 233). Berlin: Merve-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Coulson, S. (2012). Collaborating in a competitive world: Musicians’ working lives and understandings of entrepreneurship. Work, Employment and Society, 26, 246–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crevoisier, O. (2004). The innovative milieus approach: Toward a territorialized understanding of the economy? Economic Geography, 80(4), 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, A., & Ford, S. (1998). Art capital. Art Monthly, 1(213), 12–20.Google Scholar
  10. Ebbers, J. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2009). Latent organizations in the film industry: Contracts, rewards and resources. Human Relations, 62(7), 987–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eikhof, D. R., & Haunschild, A. (2007). For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism. International Sociology, 18(1), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farin, K. (2002). Generation-kick.de. Jugendsubkulturen heute. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  14. Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to ‘professionalism’ as a disciplinary mechanism. Social Review, 47(2), 280–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. Grabher, G. (2001). Ecologies of creativity: The village, the Group, and the heterarchic organisation of the British advertising industry. Environment and Planning A, 33(2), 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hesse, M., & Lange, B. (2007). Kreative Industrien – Magma und Mantra der Stadtentwicklung. Das Beispiel Berlin. Kommune, 2, 64–69.Google Scholar
  19. Hospers, G.-J. (2003). Creative city: Breeding places in the knowledge economy. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 16(3), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1281–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lampel, J. (2011). Converting values into other values: Fairs and festivals as resource valuation and trading events. In B. Moeran & J. Strandgaard Pedersen (Eds.), Negotiating values in the creative industries: Fairs, festivals and competitive events (pp. 334–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lange, B., & Mieg, H. A. (2008). Professionalisierungswege und Konstituierungen von “Märkten” in den Creative Industries. Geographische Zeitschrift 94(4), 225–242.Google Scholar
  23. Lange, B., & Steets, S. (2002). Be cool! Verortungen von Szenen sowie Raumkonstitutionsprozesse durch Culturepreneurs in Frankfurt am Main. In J. Hasse (Hrsg.), Subjektivität in der Stadtforschung (pp. 199–244). Frankfurt am Main: Selbstverlag des Instituts für Didaktik der Geographie der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  24. Lange, B., & Wellmann, I. (2009). New culturepreneurial innovators and spatial pioneers in Berlin. In Hagbarth (Hrsg.), Structural change in Europe – Innovative city and business regions 6 (pp. 76–79). Lahr: Hagbarth Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Marchington, M., Grimshaw, D., & Rubery, J. (2005). Fragmenting work: blurring organizational boundaries and disordering hierarchies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mieg, H. A. (2008). Professionalisation. In F. Rauner & R. Maclean (Hrsg.), Handbook of technical and vocational education research (pp. 502–508). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. O’Connor, J. (2002). Local scenes and dangerous crossroads: Punk and theories of cultural hybridity. Popular Music, 21(2), 225–236.Google Scholar
  28. Reckwitz, A. (2009, April/May). Die Selbstkulturalisierung der Stadt. Zur Transformation moderner Urbanität in der “creative city”. Mittelweg 36. Zeitschrift des Hamburger Instituts für Sozialforschung, 18, 2–34.Google Scholar
  29. Ross, A. (2008). The new geography of work: Power to the precarious? Theory Culture Society, 25(7–8), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Senate for Economic, Technology and Women Affairs Berlin (Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen Berlin). (Eds.). (2014). Dritter Kreativwirtschaftsbericht. Entwicklung und Potenziale (Third creative industries report. Development and potentials). Berlin: nat for Economic, Technology and Women Affairs Berlin (Senatsverwaltung für Wirtschaft, Technologie und Frauen Berlin).Google Scholar
  31. SMWA. (2008). 1. Kulturwirtschaftsbericht für den Freistaat Sachsen. Dresden: Sächsisches Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit.Google Scholar
  32. Steets, S. (2008). “Wir sind die Stadt!” Kulturelle Netzwerke und die Konstitution städtischer Räume in Leipzig. Interdisziplinäre Stadtforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  33. Townley, B., Beech, N., & McKinlay, A. (2009). Managing in the creative industries: Managing the motley crew. Human Relations, 62(7), 939–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vinodrai, T. (2006). Reproducing Toronto’s design ecology: Career paths, intermediaries, and local labor markets. Economic Geography, 82(2), 237–263.Google Scholar
  35. von Bismarck, B., & Koch, A. (2005). Beyond education. Kunst, Ausbildung, Arbeit und Ökonomie. Leipzig: Revolver – Archiv für aktuelle Kunst.Google Scholar
  36. Weckerle, C., Gerig, M., & Söndermann, M. (2007). Kreativwirtschaft Schweiz – Daten, Modelle, Szene. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations