Reflection is often viewed as a specific intrapersonal process of epistemological questioning, but this is by necessity only part of the phenomenon. I will here argue for a critique of reflection and vanity in the social sciences by way of an inquiry into the academic economy. By recasting this as a hybrid phenomena, and then showing how such a reading can be used to reflect on the nature of reflection in academic work, I try to outline a project of developing a post-moralizing social science.

Media and entrepreneur support organizations glorify empire building entrepreneurs, reflecting a world-view of older generations. Research on nascent entrepreneurs reveals that few of them are building organizations that fit the old ideal. Instead, their priorities and the stories they are creating better reflect the career view of the generation now entering the workforce (Generation Y). When asked about future organizational success, the 187 nascent entrepreneurs in this study focused on relationships, integrity and lifestyle. This paper explores which types of entrepreneurs may be held up as exemplary as the Baby Boomers leave positions of power and Generation Y enters the workforce: What the stories may be, and what impact this may have on education, economy, families, and public policy.

Markets are considered economic phenomena, which is said to be true even if markets are considered social structures, cultural fields, or simply politics, at the same time. Against this background, the present paper argues for a polyphonic market concept. Unlike the popular economy-biased notion of markets, such a concept allows for the analysis of markets in eras and areas where functional differentiation did or does not exist or play a major role. Furthermore, it turns the idea of the ultimately economic nature of markets from an axiom to a research question. In doing so, it breaks ground for research in major trends in functional differentiation and in the preferences for particular function systems featured by concrete groups, milieus or organizations.

Authentic leadership appears as the solution to plenty of painful contemporary problems. Bad economy, bad organizational performance, bad culture would all become subject to change for the better if leaders behave more authentically, according to the line of discussion. However, the debate seems to stand on poor feet, since some core assumptions don’t stand a closer viability check. This paper highlights two core problems in the foundations of the authenticity debate such as the belief in a stable core self and the trust in a homogenous organization. The paper demonstrates not only the fragmented and narrative constitution of self and organization, we show furthermore to which hidden problem the authenticity debate refers; to which the sheer existence of the debate is already a solution. It is complexity avoidance that the authenticity debate provides. It helps to re-install the myth of the influential leader in a situation, in which the opposite has become apparent.

The intention of this article is not to offer a counterargument for interdisciplinarity or to argue that a cultural reading of finance does not necessarily amount to doing bad economics. Rather, I want to offer a performance of “bad economics”, informed by the belief that culture and economy have “always already” been fused. From this perspective, thinking about economy outside the context of a conjunctural analysis of cultural knowledge and practices—including popular culture—is not an option and, therefore, collapsing into a reductive “us versus them” default position is ruled out from the outset. In other words, this article brings cultural studies to questions of economics in life and death issues as a means of addressing the present moment and the changing ways in which we now talk about economies. Throughout this essay, therefore, I will argue from the assumption that culture and economy are as inseparable from one another as the sides of a sheet of paper.