At first glance, a statement of social entrepreneurship might sound grand and good, but when you scrutinize the concept you might come to the conclusion that “social” and “entrepreneur” is in fact nothing more than an oxymoron.

There is after all no entrepreneurship that at least on some level isn’t social.

Consider reversing the idea: What does “unsocial entrepreneurship” look like? There is no market without clients and no taxes when products or services aren’t produced. On the whole, this model has been working fairly well, granted the occasional depression. Mismatches between the factors are offset by means of adapting and leveraging fiscal policies. Standard Keynes stuff, as it were, and though many liberals disagree on it, that’s pretty much how the market (predominantly in the Western economies) operates.

So why add “social” to “entrepreneur” a critical individual might ask? Experience tells us whenever there are too many words to describe something, it is either about creating an image, outright lie, or something in between. A due course in an investigation might be asking the “social entrepreneur” as to what he (because it most often IS a he), or she, what the business is all about. At this point, things start to get rather unclear and one is likely to hear the most outrageously funny claims told with the most serious of faces (social entrepreneurs are probably excellent poker players – beware!).

Without mentioning any particularly odd examples, the conversation usually goes something along the lines of this: The individual, the “social entrepreneur”, feels (with emphasis on feeling, not thinking) that “something” is wrong with the world, and he or she would like to help. Usually, this help is restricted to creating some form of online presence, getting others to notice it (yes, that’s right, “social” media is of course involved), then… well, there usually won’t be a “then”, since the individual, or by such time often a group, will notice that market rules cannot, should not and will not apply to what it is they’re actually involved with – charity.

Charity, at its best, is a by-product of a market economy. Capital can and should be used to prevent social injustices, stimulate growth and be a tool for overcoming poverty and suffering.

Charity, however – is not a business. It is exactly what the word means: Charity. Business models do not apply to charities, and charitable organizations have their own tax laws, regulations and codes of conduct attached to them. It is, as it should be. Social entrepreneurship, by contrast – is a sort of bastard child who’s inherited the worst possible DNA from both parents. No matter how social entrepreneurs will struggle to call their audiences “clients”, the term client will always denote “choice”. It is as inevitable as dark clouds denote rain. A “client” for social entrepreneurs has no choice, he, she or it, is selected – often by way of committee – incidentally, a committee again being not very compatible with anything even vaguely entrepreneurial. And while we’re at it, we might as well mention the confusion and general disagreement on the term “entrepreneur” within the ranks of the socially entrepreneured. There are hard-liners who are claiming that the term is far too egocentric and focuses too much on the individual. What we are faced with is a quagmire of conflicts, subjectivity and unclear motives.

In effect, given the vague definition of social entrepreneurship, the lack of consensus within the field and the fact that the “business model” has some pretty serious theoretical flaws – not even mentioning what seedy Pandora’s box is likely to await the scholar who were to aim some serious research into the premises of social entrepreneurship – then what, in fact, are we looking at?

Given the charity-sector’s prevailing financial problems, it makes sense to re-brand from “charity” to “social entrepreneur”. Things are so much easier when contacting the bank, an conservative institution who’s likely to be very skeptical of too overtly leftist money-leaking schemes with little or no financial benefit, control or business plan. A ruse to camouflage terrible business from the eyes of bankers then? The explanation seems more than likely, given it’s recent popularity.

Not being able to define what it is you actually do can be made to work to your advantage, especially when your speaking partner isn’t paying attention (very useful in the case of seeking grants from “social” banks, the utterly derelict and morally corrupt European Union or any number of social divisions within State or Municipality). For instance, when confronted with facts, objects and figures, there’s the possibility of morphing the alleged “entrepreneurship” to a different place on the map, befuddling the question with a rhetorical pirouette consisting of a clever use of the word “social”, “responsibility” and “growth”. Ta-da, the money rattling machine says.

Money, usually generated by legitimate, often old-fashioned businesses. With business models, revenue strategies and actual people doing actual work. Money, made from engineering ingenuity, hard labor and clever market services. Money accumulated through charity – and taxes.

In this short text there is no place for a complete discourse on social responsibility of the corporate sector, and we will most fashionably forego to mention the other, perhaps tad more regulated branch: CSR (though be sure, also beset by critics, unsurprisingly often from the ranks of the “entrepreneurs” themselves). What is noteworthy, however, is that if there is any actual value to social entrepreneurs it is that in many cases it is a useful tool for hiding skyrocketing figures of youth unemployment – and some of the online efforts built by them are clever mass data collection units – even if they usually turn out to be complete conceptual failures.

Social entrepreneurs are obsessed with scale. This, they by and large share with actual businesses. It is not enough to “save” one client and operate one unit at a time. For social success (to whatever end stated) you need to be able to enlarge your operation. Even in a sustainable world, there needs to be some level of growth, even if it isn’t strictly marketable. Sadly, as most of the social ventures are based in online milieus, they are either one-off’s built on the image and work of individuals or simply impossible to migrate to the real, unrelenting, unforgiving world of actual problems, suffering and trauma.

Yet, the hype goes on and legions of social entrepreneurs, entrenched in modern offices – subsidized by tax payers or businesses that actually generate capital – continue to make small or no difference to real world problems, and are quite free to feel cosy about themselves contributing to some grand, esoteric goal.

Woe is he who would dare to question such lustrous visions. The highbrowism of contemporary social youth is almost as dangerous as it was of its punk counterpart, some two-three generations ago. Though, arguably – the Punks were less serious about the whole thing – and viewed themselves a lot less seriously. Today, it is not uncommon to encounter sect-like behavior, ostracizing of critical thought and other generally un-social behavior coming from the future saviors of the planet. Attitudes are however only just that – attitudes, and what prophets do not have their fallible days?

Or should the real business world tolerate such behavior? After all – it is this world and no other, that in the end finances these youthful antics. Perhaps we should expose social entrepreneurship for what it, at least for the moment, seems to be: Neo-communistic market-hating fetishism. Perhaps we need to see through all the imagery, the hype and outright lies; the cocky self-assertiveness of people who have achieved nothing, yet claim rights to the achievements of others. Perhaps we need to call social entrepreneurship by its rightful name: Theft.

Then, and only then, will we be able to put some serious, actual, hands-on, effort into correcting the injustices of this world. We cannot will the world into submission – regardless of how many “online startups” we finance. Only hard work, tears and blood will achieve that.

We need boots and hands on the ground: engineers, doctors, scientists and skilled individuals – not sect-minded-minded youth with their heads in clouds.

The only trouble with this assumption is that a random shooting of the wolf population does next to nothing to improve the overall genetic health of animals. It does, however, vastly improve the trophy collection of the lucky shooter. Both scientists as well as the general population have agreed on this point: The only realistic way of improving the genetic pool would be to remove flawed cubs and to introduce new individual wolves into the breed. The first is practically undoable (since the only realistic way of finding out if a cub is indeed substandard genetic material is to kill it and do a full autopsy), but in order to sanction the event, the Swedish Hunters association agreed to the second. Something that they’re now backing out of, threatening to kill off the remaning wolves as well.

I won’t go into the public debate or any right or wrongs; because what Guillou so brilliantly describes in his article is the actual heart of the matter:

1. The hunters care nothing for the health of the animals: They covet the trophy alone.
2. In the rethoric employed by the Hunters Association is something infinately worse than any random bloodhunt: The ancient controversy between an everbleeding, dying, rural Sweden and the evergrowing urban population.

For the first point, there is nothing much to be said. Trophies are a fact of hunting. They are however, far less philosophical than they used to be. I will get back to that in a few paragraphs.

And as to the second, the articles in the Hunters Associations periodical, speeches and other public media are statistically biased to the point of outright lies and the rethoric is one seething with anger, humiliation and hate for the urban population of Sweden. The rurals accuse the urbanites of being “ecohuggers” and “idiots”, or even worse, “Stockholmers”, referring to the preposterous idea of living in the nation capital.

The rethoric is understandable, and forgiveable. Rural Sweden has fared exceedingly ill after the economy shifting towards industrialism around the 1950′s, thus leaving a culture based on agriculture, then a few years later moving on to a service economy and in the process almost completely eradicating any basis for economic growth in the rural areas. The best minds, and able hands, left for the cities, or other nations, the factories slowly bled out; what is left are those who would not, or could not adapt – and those violently opposed to the changing times. The conflict of the wolf shooting is not about ecology and it is not about the fate of a few animals, it is the cultural divide between an almost ancient and dying, rural culture – and the urban shift towards an urban one. If one would be that way inclined, it could even be called the rigor mortis of the rural subculture.

What further complicates the conflict is an almost neofeudal, Swedish tax structure. The proceeds and taxes earned in the three major urban areas are redistributed to keep the vast rural areas alive. In essence, levies from wealthy cities pay for investments, healthcare and other municipal expenses in parts of the country unable to sustain themselves. Too few people live rurally and those that do, are statistically at least, further detrimental to the state budget in various, less charming, ways. The system is a yoke put on urbanites and has done little to further the relations of the two groups. For all intents and purposes, this way of governing has furthered the economical divide, seeping into all areas of cohabitation.

Both rural and urban sides struggle with their identities. The ways of one are the camp jokes of another. Urbanites struggle with the reigns of economy in an accelerating pace, demanding an almost pervese attention (Lang’s Metropolis comes to mind); and the rurals struggle with the receeding end of that very same chain. If the past 50 years are indicative of anything I’d say the rurals are at the losing end. Economy isn’t a patient lover at all. The life support of the major cities will continue as long as there is anything to be gained and once even what small progress can be acheived will dwindle, there will no doubt be voices raised, impatiently, proclaiming in so many words, even if they will be more eloquently put: “Fucking die, already”.

A few final words on hunting, and the role of it in any modern society. Hunting, the sport of kings – is in as much ethical turbulence as are the two groups practicing it. The essence of hunting has changed greatly over just a few years. From survival to sport, from sport to… recreation. Because what is blatantly apparent is that hunters of today, care little for ecology or nature. Most of the modern hunters are too absorbed by their rifles than they are in forestry, or ethics. Historically, the best hunters are those that cared for nature and animal alike, understood the delicate balance and when it was their place to intervene – and when to step back. Hunting was as much a scholary activity as it was a necessity. You had to know something about an animal and its life in order to end it. In short, ethics, morality and ecology were in balance.

Today, in order to become a hunter, there are no such requirements. The process is easy and most of the emphasis is on the actual handling of the gun. The Hunter as archetype is dead and what has taken his place is a gleeful individual, much more at home in the NRA (National Rifle Association, the home of gun-toting “freedom-loving”, Americans who just cannot understand the concept of not shooting things) than in the forest. Ecology is biology, ethics and philosophy. These things take time to understand because they affect us in far deeper ways than an instruction in how to clean the muzzle of your rifle. The idea is that by the time you learn the ethics, and the system, you will no longer feel the need to drive out to the woods and kill something and then have a beer over its carcass. I suggest that anyone, absolutely anyone – who feels the need to become a hunter, should be made to undertake a lengthy education into the ecosystem that they’re so eager to pull bounty from. If, by the end of that education, preferrably completed in one of Swedens agricultural universities – that individual has fully understood what it truly means to hunt – then that person should be awarded the rank and license of hunter. I’m betting that we’d see far less hunters in the future than the roughly 270 000 individuals who have a license like this today.

A brilliant starting point for this journey, would be Josè Ortega y Gasset’s “Meditations on hunting”. While pointing out that hunting is in man’s nature, he is often misquoted by the bloodthirsty hunting mob of today as advocating what is a modern hunt. Far from it. What Ortega y gasset in essence writes about is the ethics of hunting and the responsibility of the hunt. This is not to be confused with easy pretexts to go and kill something. Finally – what the author presumably also knew, is that man changes and the premises for what being a man is, also change. Perhaps, we finally need to stop killing for fun.

Now, how about that, rurals?