Drawing on observations at the 2017 Social Enterprise World Forum (SEWF) – a global conference held in Christchurch, New Zealand – this paper examines the significance of localised event spaces in shaping economic subjects and, by extension, economic sectors. Conferences such as the SEWF are sites and moments that provide access to new knowledge, foster collective action and shape the subjectivities of economic actors. We describe how the SEWF cultivated sympathetic affective responses towards social enterprise and the subject position of the social entrepreneur, and demonstrate how the local specificities of Christchurch, as a place, were key to the cultivation of social-entrepreneurial subjectivity at the SEWF.
AndersonB (2016) Neoliberal affects. Progress in Human Geography40(6): 734–753.
5.
BandinelliC (2017) Social Entrepreneurship: Sociality, Ethics, and Politics. Goldsmiths, University of London.
6.
BandinelliCArvidssonA (2013) Brand yourself a changemaker!Journal of Macromarketing33(1): 67–71.
7.
BernoT (2017) Social enterprise, sustainability and community in post-earthquake Christchurch. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy11(1): 149–165.
8.
BoltanskiLChiapelloE (2007) The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
9.
ClokePConradsonD (2018) Transitional organisations, affective atmospheres and new forms of being-in-common: Post-disaster recovery in Christchurch, New Zealand. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers43(3): 360–376.
10.
ClokePDickinsonS (2019) Transitional ethics and aesthetics: reimagining the postdisaster city in Christchurch, New Zealand. Annals of the American Association of Geographers109(6): 1922–1940.
11.
CookBDoddsCMitchellW (2003) Social entrepreneurship - false premises and dangerous forebodings. Australian Journal of Social Issues38(1): 57–72.
12.
DacinMTDacinPATraceyP (2011) Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions. Organization Science22(5): 1203–1213.
DeesJG (2007) Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society44(3): 24–31.
15.
DeyPLehnerO (2017) Registering ideology in the creation of social entrepreneurs: intermediary organizations, ʻIdeal Subjectʼ and the promise of enjoyment. Journal of Business Ethics142(4): 753–767.
16.
DeyPSchneiderHMaierF (2016) Intermediary organisations and the hegemonisation of social entrepreneurship: fantasmatic articulations, constitutive quiescences, and moments of indeterminacy. Organization Studies37(10): 1451–1472.
17.
GrantS (2008) Contextualising social enterprise in New Zealand. Social Enterprise Journal4(1): 9–23.
18.
GrayMHealyKCroftsP (2003) Social enterprise: is it the business of social work?Australian Social Work56(2): 141–154.
19.
HudsonR (2009) Life on the edge: navigating the competitive tensions between the ʻsocialʼ and the ʻeconomicʼ in the social economy and in its relations to the mainstream. Journal of Economic Geography9(4): 493–510.
20.
LaiKPY (2016) Financial advisors, financial ecologies and the variegated financialisation of everyday investors. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers41(1): 27–40.
21.
LangelyP (2014) Equipping entrepreneurs: consuming credit and credit scores. Consumption Markets and Culture17(5): 448–467.
22.
Le HeronR (2009) ʻRooms and momentsʼ in neoliberalising policy trajectories of metropolitan Auckland, New Zealand: towards constituting progressive spaces through post-structural political economy. Asia Pacific Viewpoint50: 135–153.
23.
MaukschS (2017) Managing the dance of enchantment: an ethnography of social entrepreneurship events. Organization24(2): 133–153.
24.
McNeillKSilsethL (2015) Growing pains: the fourth sector as a progressive alternative in New Zealand. New Zealand Sociology30(2): 59–72.
25.
MolloyMLarnerW (2010) Who needs cultural intermediaries indeed?Journal of Cultural Economy3(3): 361–377.
26.
ParkinsonCHoworthC (2008) The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development20(3): 285–309.
