You, too, can never, ever unwind

There are many entrepreneurs in today’s world. Business founders, of course, are entrepreneurs, as are their subordinate managers. Ride-share operators, influencers, life consultants: entrepreneurs. There are those who label themselves as intrapreneurs, solopreneurs, and sidepreneurs, each embodying the principles of entrepreneurship in their distinctive manners.

In “Craft Your Own Career,” history of science lecturer Erik Baker investigates the American acceptance of entrepreneurialism and why, despite its widespread popularity, it can often feel draining.

Baker became intrigued by the subject as his peers graduated from university, secured lucrative corporate employment, and swiftly became unhappy. One expressed that she felt akin to Natalie Portman’s character in the science fiction film “Annihilation,” who plummets into a dark chasm and encounters a malevolent double. There was something noteworthy, Baker considered, about how work alters our relationships with ourselves.

In “Craft Your Own Career,” Baker traces the American fascination with entrepreneurship back to the late 19th century. It marked the end of the initial period of American industrialization, and the swift electrification of manufacturing facilities, among other factors, decreased the need for factory labor. Following significant job growth throughout the 1800s, Baker notes, “The employment growth rate in manufacturing began to decline in 1890 and turned negative around 1920.”

Social researchers termed this job loss as “structural” or “technological” unemployment: “Unemployment that was not the result of brief, cyclical crises,” Baker notes, “but was instead a consequence of irreversible modifications to the technical framework of American industry.”

In response, Americans transitioned from a diligent work ethic to an entrepreneurial ethos infused with concepts of personal elevation in New Thought. Rather than concentrating on the intrinsic value of hard work, the new mentality prioritized the notion that hard work alone was insufficient; one ought to apply their distinctive skills to the endeavor at hand with relentless drive. A group of success authors, across various racial and gender backgrounds, began to advocate a similar philosophy: “Craft your own career.”

Baker documents how entrepreneurialism, along with its very definition, has broadened over time. In the early 1900s, traditional management methods that emphasized production processes gave way to “entrepreneurial management,” which focused not merely on overseeing employees but inspiring them. At Harvard Business School, among other institutions, management theorists emphasized the significance of leaders who ensured workers “did not merely perceive themselves as subordinates,” in Baker’s words, “but as members of a team or a family, or even as part of a revolutionary group.”

The new mentality prioritized the notion that hard work alone was insufficient; one ought to apply their distinctive skills to the endeavor at hand with relentless drive.

In Baker’s account, the enthusiasm for entrepreneurship typically rises during periods of economic turmoil. During the Great Depression, “odd jobs” transformed into an esteemed pursuit. Engaging in freelance work was not simply a method to earn extra income, but, as the authors of the 1933 book “Craft Your Own Career: Opportunities in Unusual Vocations” articulated, a means for individuals to establish “a small one-person business of their own.” Women over 40, who frequently faced hiring biases, could adopt this individualistic mindset. “We Are Forty and We Did Get Jobs,” proclaimed the title of one self-help publication directed towards women.

Baker utilizes these mentions of self-help literature to illustrate changes in national sentiment. Authors such as Napoleon Hill, whose 1937 work “Think and Grow Rich” remains recognized today, urged readers to transform work into a vocation that depended on specialized knowledge, creativity, and self-advocacy. “With the shifting circumstances ushered in by the global economic collapse,” Hill wrote, “came also the necessity for improved methods of marketing personal services.”

By the mid-20th century, Baker asserts, the interest in entrepreneurship had expanded into non-economic domains, with Abraham Maslow and other psychologists emerging as supporters. “The 100 most valuable individuals to bring into a deteriorating society,” Maslow posited, “would not be 100 chemists, politicians, professors, or engineers, but rather 100 entrepreneurs.”

It also became a catch-all rationale for a lack of economic progress. As the fates of American cities sharply diverged with the departure and closure of factories throughout the 1960s, certain analysts attributed rising unemployment in cities like Detroit to a deficit of entrepreneurial zeal.

Amid these mid-century shifts, Baker posits that virtually everyone could envision themselves as entrepreneurs: company leaders, managers who could motivate their colleagues, employees who could take more initiative, and even job seekers searching for work. “It was far from evident that high-tech corporate executives … were engaged in the same kinds of pursuits as a laid-off Black worker enrolling in adult education classes, or a shopkeeper in India deliberating a change in management strategies,” argues Baker. “But mid-century perspectives on entrepreneurship and development relied precisely on this equivalence.”

In the 1970s and 1980s, Baker contends, it wasn’t simply a lack of work that pulled individuals toward entrepreneurship, but a deficiency of jobs perceived as significant. This desire was, in part, addressed by leaders who urged employees to regard their work as a source of enlightenment. Apple’s Steve Jobs asserted that vying with IBM was not just an economic necessity but a moral one — lest IBM prevail and stifle innovation. Ralph Nader’s Center for Study of Responsive Law received support from enthusiastic, driven employees. When asked how many hours he expected them to put in, Nader remarked without humor: “The ideal is 100.”

The appeal of entrepreneurialism persists to this day, Baker observes, partly because it romanticizes a continuous state of risk. As concerns over technological job displacement escalate alongside the number of individuals in freelance or temporary positions, more people perceive themselves as the epicenter of an entrepreneurial venture — even if that venture is just themselves.

Engaging with “Craft Your Own Career,” one can comprehend why Baker’s friend found herself grappling with levels of distress reminiscent of science fiction. When failure perpetually appears imminent, it becomes challenging to unwind. For Baker, entrepreneurialism compels everyone to maintain a singular focus on the future — and to remain uneasy in the present.