Perkin Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

VIII

The Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Ideal

THE entrepreneurial ideal, it might be thought in that post hoc wisdom which is

the besetting sin of historians, was bound to win the struggle between the ideals.

Marx, who was among the first to recognize—and welcome—the victory of the

bourgeoisie, also recognized that like any new ruling class it had to impose its

own ideology upon the rest of society:

For each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it,

is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as

the common interest of all members of society, i.e. employing an ideal

formula, to give its ideas the form of universally valid ones.

But we have seen that not only the ruling class but every other represents its

interest as the common interest, and universalizes its own ideal. It is not so much

that the ruling class imposes its ideal upon the rest, but that the class which

manages to impose its ideal upon the rest becomes the ruling class.

This interpretation is obviously nearer the truth in Victorian England where

the entrepreneurial class ruled, as it were, by, remote control, through the power

of its ideal over the ostensible ruling class, the landed aristocracy which

continued to occupy the main positions of power down to the 1880’s and

beyond. The landed class possessed a clear majority of the House of Commons

until 1885, of the Cabinet until 1893, if not 1905, and of the House of Lords until

long after the Parliament Act of 1911 drastically reduced its powers.

effectively controlled recruitment to the Civil Service until at least 1870, to the

Army until 1871, and to the Church for as long as it cared to exercise it. It

dominated local government until at least 1888, and in some counties for much

longer. Yet neither contemporaries nor historians have doubted that the capitalist

middle class were the ‘real’ rulers of mid-Victorian England, in the sense that the

laws which were passed and executed by landed Parliaments and Governments

Marx, German Ideology (1845–6), Bottomore and Rubel, op. cit., p. 80.

were increasingly those demanded by the business men and—which is not

necessarily the same people —their intellectual mentors.

Of course, all power is limited in practice, and power by remote control is

subject to what engineers call transmission losses. Not only did the landowners

have a veto on matters affecting their own interest, which on occasions of head-

on collision required the threat of revolution to remove. The working class, too,

made demands which could not be ignored altogether, and, especially when

allied with capable ‘social cranks’ from the politically entrenched classes, had to

be met by concessions and compromise. Finally, the professional middle class

had a profound influence both on the demands made by the other classes and the

language in which they expressed them and on the way in which the laws were

framed and administered. Between these three influences power could often be

attenuated, or diverted into directions not anticipated by the class wielding it. To

this extent the victory of the entrepreneurial class was a highly qualified one.

Nevertheless, and for that very reason, the triumph of the entrepreneurial ideal

was complete, and both preceded and went further than that of the class itself. It

was by persuading the rest of society, or the great majority of it, to accept their

ideal of a class society based on capital and competition, not by personally

capturing the institutions of government, that the capitalist middle class was able

to achieve its aims: free trade in nearly everything, from commerce, through land,

labour, and appointments under the State, to education and religion.

Victory in the struggle meant winning three crucial battles: the battle for the

heart, for control of the prevailing system of morality; the battle for the mind, for

the control of education and of public opinion about society; and the battle for

the State, for control not merely of the choice of governors but of legislation and

the administrative system. Of the three the first two were infinitely more

important than the third. Whichever ideal won them could afford a less than

overwhelming victory in the third, and still win the whole campaign. For

whichever class came, through the acceptance of its ideal, to control the heart

and mind of society could, without itself taking over the State, indirectly control

government policy, the content of legislation, and the recruitment and methods

of the administrators. This, as we shall see, was the achievement of the capitalist

middle class, and the triumph of their ideal.

THE MORAL REVOLUTION

The battle for the heart came first, both in time and in importance. John Stuart

Mill once said that ‘wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the

morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class

superiority.’

Yet, as with Marx above, the argument may be nearer the truth the

Cf. § 2, below.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 225

other way round: whichever class manages to impose its own morality upon the

rest of the nation will become the ascendant class. For every class had its feeling

of moral superiority, and tried to get the other classes to accept it. Indeed, the

ideal in each case was as much a moral as a social ideal, and the ideal citizen a

paragon of morality as well as the model for social emulation. It is therefore true

to say that the morality it hoped to impose on the rest of the nation emanated

from its class interests, but like a sort of ethical ectoplasm it emanated at a very

etheral level. The moral ideal was a highly sublimated version of its economic

interest.

The aristocratic ideal of the gentleman was a moral ideal based on the

chivalrous code of honour. It was not a particularly gentle code. Originally the

gentleman meant a man of gentle birth, i.e. ‘good’ or ‘high’ birth in the feudal

hierarchy, as opposed to the common or villainous birth of the mere villager, and

had no more to do with gentleness than serfdom as such had to do with villainy.

Gentleness and villainy were secondary attributes fathered on the language by

the snobbery of the gentry. The gentlemanly code of honour, on the contrary,

was the paramilitary code of an aristocracy by conquest, which prided itself on

its valour on the battlefield rather than its dedication to the arts of peace. It had

been somewhat softened by the medieval Christian ideal of the chivalrous knight

fighting for the Church and the heretical ideal of the knight of courtly love. But

it remained down to the early nineteenth century an aggressive code which

demanded that a gentleman should indeed be honest and keep his word—to other

gentlemen, though not necessarily to servants and inferiors; be courteous and

honourable towards ladies—though not necessarily to mere women and servant-

girls; pay his debts, especially his ‘debts of honour’, i.e. gambling debts—but

not necessarily his debts to tradesmen and shopkeepers; and above all to defend

any insult to his honour by challenging the offender to a duel—provided the

offender were a gentleman, and not a man of inferior birth, in which case he was

merely obliged to administer a thrashing. In defence of their honour, half the

prime ministers of the period had at some time fought a duel: Shelburne, Pitt,

Fox, Canning, Wellington and Peel.

The code of honour was above religion, and stronger than Christian morality.

Even so Christian a gentleman and opponent of duelling as Wilberforce could

appeal to it where Christian morality failed. Supporting the Catholic Relief Bill

in the House of Commons in 1813, he asked, ‘Even if the consciences of Roman

Catholics should not be bound by the oath which they will take, where can

gentlemen be found, who after swearing not to disturb or endanger the

Established Church, would dare to rise and propose any measure to its

detriment?’

Religious sanctions were necessary, on the other hand, for the lesser

Pankhurst, Thompson, p. 131n.; cf. James Mill, in West.Rev., 1826, VI. 255: ‘every class

or combination of men have a strong propensity to get up a system of morality for

themselves, that is conformable to their own interests, and to urge [it] upon other men….’

226 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

breeds without the code: in the ranks below the gentleman, he said elsewhere,

‘that system of honour and responsibility are wanting, which, in the superior

classes, supply in some poor degree the place of higher principles.’

The gentleman

was by definition above the mercenary money-grabbing pursuits of the

commercial classes. Even his vices were less vicious because indulged in with

decorum and good taste, thus, according to some, ‘losing half their evil by losing

all their grossness.’

Divorce on the grounds of adultery could safely be allowed

for him and not for ‘the middling and inferior ranks of society’, according to Sir

Charles Wetherell, because ‘the undeniably greater immorality and moral

courseness of the poorer classes’ would increase too much the occasions for

divorce.

His typical vices, moreover—gambling, drunkenness, sexual indulgence—

were private and confined chiefly to his own class, whereas his influence for

good was public, and spread to all his neighbours. According to Blackwood’s,

‘he is to a very great extent the guide of society.’ It was only the influence of the

resident gentry which made the countryside of Britain morally superior to the

degenerate peasant villages of Ireland and to ‘the utter recklessness of impure

thought and unclean living, that is so lamentably prevalent in some of the mining

and manufacturing districts of England.’ ‘The morals and intelligence, the good

regulations and conduct, that emanate from him, spread through the country.’

The answer to the immorality as well as the insubordination of the Irish

countryside and of the industrial towns of Britain was to extend to them the

aristocratic system of moral control, to the first by means of a resident gentry, to

the second by means of Thomas Chalmers’ Glasgow system of organized charity

dispensed by district visitors. By the latter ‘improvement in the Christian and

civic economy of large towns; by the assimilation of their various districts to the

moral and religious condition of country parishes,…such a mighty reform might

be accomplished in the habits and feelings of the labouring classes, as would

animate them to unremitting and unconquerable industry’ and ‘restrict the evils of

pauperism within the narrowest possible limits.’

In this way aristocratic morality

Gentlemen from gentium, (well-) begotten; villain from villanus, peasant, serf; the

chivalrous code of honour was somewhat overlain during the Renaissance by the ideals of

the courtier, the ‘complete man’ of education and mental and physical culture, uomo

universale, but the paramilitary concept of personal honour to be defended by appeal to

arms survived intact—cf. K.Charlton, Education in Renaissance England (1965), chap, ii,

esp. pp. 81–3, which emphasizes the essential continuity of Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano

with the chivalric ideal.

Cf. O.F.Christie, The Transition from Aristocracy, 1832–67 (1927), p. 23.

R.I. and S.Wilberforce, Life of William Wilberforce (1838), IV. 99.

W.Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing System of Professing Christians

(1829), p. 203.

Ibid., p. 224.

Speech in H. of C., 3 June 1830, Blackwood’s, 1830, XXVIII. 228.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 227

was linked both to its own class interests and to the moral well-being and

economic prosperity of the whole society.

In the entrepreneurial ideal, by contrast, it was the middle class which, in the

words of James Mill, was ‘both the most wise and the most virtuous part of the

community.’

Even to a Tory merchant the manufacturing and commercial

interests were ‘the only interests which, after religious belief has been settled,

promote the moral advancement of man.’

For Patrick Colquhoun, Glasgow

merchant, London stipendiary magistrate, and one of the earliest disciples of

Bentham, the upper middle class comprised ‘a part of the community, whose

professional labours shelter them in a considerable degree from the prevailing

vices of the age’ and the lower middle class contained ‘many very useful

members of society, but by far the greatest proportion possessing religious and

moral habits,’ whereas the nobility embraced ‘not a few’ whose ‘time is spent

either at the gaming table, or in the pursuit of the most frivolous and

contemptible amusements,’ and the gentry, ‘a considerable proportion‘ disposed

rather to imitate the vices than the virtues of the highest orders of society.’ The

working classes contained ‘much usefulness, much virtue, with at the same time

a great and evident increase of the corruption of morals,’ while the lowest class of

paupers, vagrants and criminals ‘alas! exhibits a lamentable picture of deformity,

comprising indigence, vice, idleness, and criminal delinquency in all its various

shades and ramifications.’ The idle and vicious were concentrated at the

extremes of society, and were bracketed together:

It is only those who pass their lives in vice and idleness, or who dissipate

the surplus labour acquired by inheritance or otherwise in gaming and

debauchery, and the idle class of paupers, prostitutes, rogues, vagabonds,

vagrants, and persons engaged in criminal pursuits, who are real nuisances

to society—who live upon the land and labour of the people, without filling

any useful station in the body politic, or making the smallest return or

compensation to society for what they consume.

The entrepreneurial class society, in fact, was based on the moral conception of

work. For the classical economists, landowners were idle, and did nothing

whatever for their rents; workers justified themselves by work, but manual work

of a coarse and inferior kind; only the capitalist fully justified himself by work of

a morally superior kind.

The same conception was taken over by their middle-

‘Christian and Civic Economy of Large Towns’, Blackwood’s, 1819–20, VI. 18–

24, 177–83; [Robinson], ‘English and Irish Land-Letting’, ibid., 1825, XVII. 684–

701; [John Wilson], ‘The Real State of Ireland’, ibid., 1827, XXII. 18–31.

J.Mill, Government, pp. 31–2.

‘Bandana’ [John Galt], ‘Hints to Country Gentlemen’, Blackwood’s, 1822, XII,

625.

228 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

class opponents. It was implicit in Sadler’s demand for an aristocracy of service,

and in Carlyle’s distinction between ‘Workers, Master Workers, and Master Un

workers’.

But the aristocracy were not only idle, they were inevitably corrupt.

‘If powers are put into the hands of a comparatively small number, called an

Aristocracy, powers which make them stronger than the rest of the community,’

wrote James Mill, ‘they will take from the rest of the community as much as they

please of the objects of desire.’

In the more hysterical language of the Anti-Corn

Law League they were a ‘foot-pad aristocracy, power-proud plunderers,…blood-

sucking vampires,’ and ‘gluttons and debauchees,’ whose life was ‘a routine of

oppression, extravagance and luxury.’ Aristocracy and working class were united

in their drunkenness, profaneness, sexual indulgence, gambling, and love of

cruel sports.

The entrepreneur, by contrast, was virtuous by occupation, a puritan pilgrim

seeking both earthly success and heavenly bliss through work. Commerce,

according to a Manchester Congregational minister,

is constantly teaching men that thought and labour, during the years

immediately before them, present the only path to repose and enjoyment

during the years in the distance. Men are thus taught, that in relation to the

affairs of this world, no less than to the affairs of religion, the man who

would be successful ‘must take up his cross and deny himself’.

Moreover, the entrepreneur represented the cause of peace and human

brotherhood in place of the aristocrat’s love of war and violence. ‘The cause of

industry is the cause of humanity,’ ‘A Member of the Manchester Athenaeum’ told

the Young Men’s Anti-Monopoly Association in the 1840’s, ‘Instead of the

subjugation of mankind and the devastation of the earth, let peaceful and

attractive Industry propose as its highest aim, the enrichment of all by the

civilization and embellishment of the Globe.’

Hence Cobden and Bright’s

fervent belief that free trade was the first step towards world peace. Hence, too,

the belief that civilization was, as its name implied, the product of town life and

the peaceful arts of the urban middle class.

Finally, entrepreneurial morality

represented a totally different conception of the gentleman. Duelling and the

paramilitary code of honour were barbarous and criminal. Duellists were

Colquhoun, Treatise on…British Empire, pp. 106–7, 120–1.

Cf. Chap. vii, § 1, above.

Cf. chap. vii, § 3, above.

J.Mill, Government, p. 7.

Read, op. cit., p. 53; McCord, op. cit., p. 59.

Vaughan, op. cit., p. 312.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 229

cartooned in Punch as fools and monsters.

The gentleman was not born: he

made himself by his conduct and moral character, which was peaceful, not

violent. ‘Gentleness is indeed the true test of gentlemanliness,’ wrote Samuel

Smiles. ‘Riches and rank have no necessary connexion with genuine gentlemanly

qualities. The poor man may be a true gentleman—in spirit and in daily life. He

may be honest, truthful, upright, polite, temperate, courageous, self-respecting,

and self-helping—that is, be a true gentleman.’

The true gentleman, in other

words, was the entrepreneurial ideal of the self-made man.

In the working-class ideal there was no place for gentlemen of either kind.

Only materially creative workers were morally justified. The aristocratic

gentlemen were simply the perpetuators of ‘the Norman yoke’, the descendants

of the gang of marauders who had seized the land in 1066 and exploited it and

the inhabitants ever since.

The entrepreneurial gentlemen were merely a new

gang of exploiters, perpetrators of what Owen called ‘this thoroughly selfish

system’, under which

Truth, honesty, virtue, will (always) be mere names, as they are now, and

as they have ever been. Under this system there can be no true civilization;

for by it all are trained civilly to oppose one another by their created

opposition of interests. It is a low, vulgar, ignorant and inferior mode of

conducting the affairs of society; and no permanent, general and

substantial improvement can arise until it shall be superseded by a superior

mode of forming character and creating wealth.

This quotation illustrates both the strength and the weakness of the ideal and the

morality which it supported. On the one hand it mounted a masterly critique of

existing systems of morality by appealing to higher moral principles than any

actually operative in contemporary society. On the other, to bring the new

society into being required the immediate adherence of the working class, or a

large part of it, to these higher moral principles, and for this adherence the

motive was distant, altruistic, and therefore weak. Whereas the aristocratic and

entrepreneurial moralities were based on reward and punishment either in this

world or in the next (or in both) there was a strong, and philosophically superior,

tendency amongst Radicals, Socialists and Owenites, particularly the Deists and

unbelievers, to condemn as amoral all systems dependent on bribery and threat,

Faucher, op. cit., translator’s introduction, pp., viii–ix.

Vaughan, op. cit., passim.

Punch, 1842, III. 173; 1843, V. 581 ; 1844, VI. 130; 1845, IX. 1 ; 1862, XLII. 95;

cf. Christie, op. cit., p. 133.

Smiles, Self-Help, pp. 340, 334.

C.Hill, ‘The Norman Yoke’, in J.Saville, ed., Democracy and the Labour

Movement (1954).

230 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

and to argue that Virtue is its own reward.’

This was the pure Kantian

categorical imperative, but scarcely practicable within the existing systems of

morality. Hence the insistence on moral regeneration as the prerequisite of any

society based on the ideal of labour: Owen’s ‘New Moral World’ and his Society

for Promoting National Regeneration, or the ‘Educational Chartism’ and

‘Teetotal Chartism’ of the moral-force Chartists. In all three class ethics there

was naturally a gap between principles and practice, but in none was it so wide

as in the working-class ideal.

The struggle between the moralities was as much a part of the class conflict of

the period as Parliamentary Reform or the campaign against the Corn Laws. As

with them, too, it was somewhat confused by the ambivalent roles of a section of

the traditional ruling class and of competing groups of the forgotten middle

class, the professional men who championed one or other of the major classes.

But the story is still further confused by its entanglement with what may be

called the Moral Revolution, that profound change in the national character

which accompanied the Industrial Revolution. Between 1780 and 1850 the

English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken,

riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most

inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical. The

transformation diminished cruelty to animals, criminals, lunatics, and children

(in that order); suppressed many cruel sports and games, such as bull-baiting and

cock-fighting, as well as innocent amusements, including many fairs and wakes;

rid the penal code of about two hundred capital offences, abolished

transportation, and cleaned up the prisons; turned Sunday into a day of prayer for

some and mortification for all; ‘bowdlerized’ Shakespeare, Gibbon and other

‘obscene’ classics, inhibited every kind of literature save that suitable for family

reading, and almost gave the death-blow to the English stage; and generally

removed from the language, except in official publications and medical literature,

all words calculated to ‘bring a blush to the cheek of the young person.’

The rise of Victorianism, as it is usually called, is usually attributed to the

influence of Hannah More, Wilberforce, and the Evangelicals.

It would be

tempting to connect it with the struggle between the class moralities by claiming

the Clapham Sect for the middle class, to which indeed most of them belonged:

Wilberforce alone excepted, as the son of a Hull merchant reared as a landed

gentleman, and a typical ‘social crank’ like Bentham or Owen, they were

practically all business men and clergymen.

But this would be misleading, on

four counts. In the first place it falls into the common trap of building far too

much on the influence of a comparatively small group of individuals, who in any

Life of R.Owen, by Himself (1920 ed.), pp. 122–3.

R.Carlile, The Republican, 1819, I. 272; cf. W.Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political

Justice (1796), I. 179; P.B.Shelley, Plan of a Treatise on Morals, in Prose Works (ed.

R.H.Shepherd, 1906), II. 201–4; Henriques, op. cit., p. 238.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 231

case were as much an effect of the revolution as a cause, and not enough on the

motives of the much larger numbers who are supposed to have absorbed their

teaching.

Secondly, it fails to explain why the Evangelicals succeeded where their

numberless predecessors had failed. There were societies and movements similar

to Wilberforce’s Proclamation Society of 1787 and the Society for the

Suppression of Vice and Immorality of 1802 in 1757, 1698 and, with the backing

of the State, in the 1650’s.

Indeed, the attempts by English puritans to impose their

morality upon the nation date back continuously to the Reformation and beyond.

Thirdly, it fails to take account of other middle-class groups who were at least

equally important, such as the Dissenters and the Benthamites, who did more for

temperance and penal reform, for example, than did the Evangelicals. And,

fourthly, it fails to notice the crucial change in the movement at this period, from

the traditional attempt to bolster the old social system by improving the morals

of rich and poor, into a radical effort to impose a new morality designed to

support a new society. In short, the Evangelical explanation fails to account for

the revolutionary aspect of the moral revolution.

The true explanation is that the moral revolution was the imposition on the

whole society, and particularly on its upper and lower levels, of the traditional

puritanism of the English middle ranks. But it was traditional puritanism in a

variety of mutated forms, some of them surprisingly secular and, at least in the

philosophical sense, hedonistic. The most important mutation was the change

from exhortation of the various ranks to support existing society by doing their

duty in that state of life to which it had pleased God to call them, to the demand

for a new and higher morality than that associated with the traditional ruling

class. This gradual change helps to explain the fact that the revolution began

before the birth of class, and not merely as a fortuitous traditional movement

which became tangled with class conflict. It had an integral part in the gestation

of class exactly parallel to and connected with the part played by sectarian

religion. Just as Dissent, old and new, helped to carry over and transform the

latent vertical antagonism of the old society into the overt class hostility of the

new, so the moral revolution offered moral ‘dissenters’, both religious and

secular, the opportunity of carrying over and transforming the conservative

moral criticism of the old society into revolutionary moral condemnation by the

new. If we count the Evangelicals and the Benthamites as two of the leading

‘sects’, acting alongside and in the same direction as the religious Dissenters, we

Cf. M.J.Quinlan, Victorian Prelude: a History of English Manners, 1700–1830 (New

York, 1941), esp. chap. ii; Muriel Jaeger, Before Victoria (1956); F.K. Brown, Fathers of

the Victorians: the Age of Wilberforce (Cambridge, 1962).

Cf. Hennell, op. cit., chap. iii.

The 1802 Society was a conscious revival of the Society for the Reformation of

Manners of 1698—cf. its Address to the Public (1803), p. 37; Quinlan, op. cit., p. 203.

232 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

can see the moral revolution as an aspect of the same movement which swelled

the sectarian middle ranks and led them from merely formal protest to complete

emancipation. But in this case it went still further, and transformed independence

into a kind of moral imperialism.

The moral and social conservatism of the Evangelicals is proverbial.

Christianity, wrote Wilberforce in 1798,

renders the inequalities of the social scale less galling to the lower orders,

whom she also instructs, in their turn, to be diligent, humble, patient;

reminding them that their more lowly path has been allotted to them by the

hand of God; that it is their part faithfully to discharge its duties, and

contentedly to bear its inconveniences; that the present state of things is

very short; that the objects about which worldly men conflict so eagerly are

not worth the contest; that the peace of mind, which religion offers

indiscriminately to all ranks, affords more true satisfaction than all the

expensive pleasures which are beyond the poor man’s reach; that in this

view the poor have the advantage, and that, if their superiors enjoy more

abundant comforts, they are also exposed to many temptations from which

the inferior classes are happily exempted; that, ‘having food and raiment,

they should be therewith content,’ for that their situation in life, with all its

evils, is better than they deserved at the hand of God; and finally, that all

human distinctions will soon be done away, and the true followers of Christ

will all, as children of the same Father, be alike admitted to the possession

of the same heavenly inheritance. Such are the blessed effects of

Christianity on the temporal well-being of political communities.

The Society for the Suppression of Vice seems to have been as much concerned

to suppress Jacobinism as immorality, and it was not without cause that Sydney

Smith described it in 1809 as ‘a society for suppressing the vices of persons

whose income does not exceed  500 per annum.’

Yet if many Evangelicals ascribed existing ‘licentiousness’ to ‘a want of

attention to the conduct of the lower degree of people,’

this was not true of them

all. Wilberforce told himself at the outset that ‘God has set before me as my

object the reformation of manners,’ and it is clear that he meant the manners of

both rich and poor.

Now, there is good reason for believing that the

Evangelicals had far more effect on the rich than they did on the poor. Their

books and pamphlets were largely bought by the rich, and the astonishing

circulations of their tracts are very largely accounted for by the widespread

practice of bulk purchase by the rich for free distribution to the poor—to much

the same effect, no doubt, as modern political and religious hand-outs.

Their

Wilberforce, Practical View (1834 ed.), pp. 301–2.

Edin.Rev., 1809, XIII. 342.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 233