Entrepreneurial Identity Narratives: From Heroic Modernity to the Postmodern Multiplicity of Roles

Tolkachev Petr Postgraduate student, Department of Social Philosophy, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Leninskie Gory, 1 peter.tolkachev@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the modern world, the image of an entrepreneur is undergoing significant changes compared to the canonical image of the XIX–XX centuries. If the industrial capitalist of the last century was often portrayed as a "titan of industry" – a powerful hero of progress and the embodiment of the modernist ideal of steady development – then the entrepreneur of the 21st century operates in a fundamentally different cultural field. The postmodern context is characterized by the fragmentation of the "big narratives" of development and success ^{[8, p. 51]}, globalization and digitalization of the economy, which leads to the erosion of previous stable identities. The problem arises: what narratives shape the entrepreneur's self-identification today, after the collapse of the heroic modernist myth? How relevant is the image of a monumental "titan" in the era of startup culture, social media, and platform capitalism?

The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that entrepreneurship plays a central role in economics and culture, but its understanding is often limited to economic functionalism or managerial efficiency. In this paper, an attempt is made to expand this view by applying a philosophical and sociological approach to the phenomenon of entrepreneurial identity. The scientific novelty of the research consists in an interdisciplinary analysis of the entrepreneur's image from the standpoint of postmodern philosophy and cultural studies. This approach allows us to identify hidden ideologemes and discourses that influence how entrepreneurs understand themselves and are represented to society.

The purpose of the study is to trace the evolution of entrepreneurial identity and identify its modern characteristics in postmodern conditions. To achieve this goal, the concepts of postmodern philosophy are used (skepticism towards the "meta-narratives" of progress according to J.F. Lyotard ^{[8, p. 10]}, the idea of a consumer society and simulacra according to J. Baudrillard ^{[2, p. 5-7]}, "fluid modernity" by Z. Bauman ^{[1, p. 7-23]}, the concept of discursive power and subjectivation in M. Foucault), as well as methods of narrative and discursive analysis. In particular, the deconstruction of the traditional heroic image of an entrepreneur and the analysis of media narratives that form many new roles are being undertaken. Based on an interdisciplinary approach, the work combines philosophical theory, sociological research and cultural analysis of examples from the media. This allows us to comprehensively highlight the transformation of the entrepreneur's image in the context of the transition from modernity to postmodernity.

The Modernist myth of the "titan of industry"

Historically, the image of an entrepreneur in the modern era was formed against the background of the industrial revolution, colonial expansion and the rapid growth of the capitalist economy. By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the image of the so–called "captain of industry" had become established in the public imagination – a talented industrial magnate who was driving progress with his energy and ingenuity. Figures like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, or Henry Ford in the United States, as well as major manufacturers in Europe, have become cultural heroes of modernity, symbolizing the triumph of private initiative. Such an entrepreneur is thought of as a self-made man – "a self-made man" who rose from the bottom thanks to hard work, rationality and bold innovations. The modernist consciousness endowed him with the features of a titan capable of transforming the world with the power of reason and will. Ideologically, the dominance of such business leaders was justified through concepts like Protestant ethics. Weber) and G. Spencer's social Darwinism, according to which wealth was considered both as a sign of virtue and as a result of natural selection. The Titans themselves sought to legitimize their position through philanthropy: Thus, E. Carnegie proclaimed the idea that a billionaire is obliged to direct his fortune to the public good (The Gospel of Wealth, 1889), consolidating the image of the entrepreneur as a noble hero ^{[12, pp. 653-657]}.

This heroic narrative of entrepreneurship was also supported in theory. For example, in the first half of the 20th century, the economist J. Schumpeter described the entrepreneur as the central figure in the process of "creative destruction" that ensures the renewal of the economy ^[11]. Schumpeter actually romanticized the image of an innovator-businessman, arguing that a true entrepreneur is a kind of rebel who goes beyond the routine "cycle" and creates something qualitatively new. Such an individual, according to Schumpeter, is "the most rational and selfish of all", less bound by tradition than others, because he is called upon to break the foundations and introduce innovations ^{[13, p. 120-123]}. In modern culture, an entrepreneur appears as an individualistic genius whose personal success is identified with the progress of society. This motif can be traced even in popular culture – for example, the characters in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957) are elevated to the rank of titans, on whom the world allegorically rests ^[9].

However, such an exalted image did not remain without criticism. The Marxist tradition initially viewed the capitalist entrepreneur more as an exploiter who appropriates surplus value through wage labor ^[5]. K. Marx characterized the capitalist as "personalized capital", fanatically striving for self-expansion of value – even at the cost of impoverishing workers. From this point of view, the "heroism" of industrialists only covered up systematic exploitation and class inequality. Functionalist approaches in sociology of the mid-20th century (for example, modernization theory) idealized the role of the entrepreneur as an engine of development, but often ignored the negative effects of industrialism on society. In reality, industrial titans built not only factories, but also monopolies, creating acute social problems ranging from inequality and dangerous working conditions to environmental costs. Already at the beginning of the 20th century, there was an ironic characterization of magnates as "robber barons" – "robber barons", emphasizing predatory methods of their enrichment ^[14].

Over time, society became more and more aware of the duality of the legacy of the "titans of industry." The narrative of unconditional progress under their leadership began to raise doubts. In the era of antitrust reforms (the separation of trusts like Standard Oil in 1911) and subsequent social transformations, the image of the all-powerful industrialist was partially demythologized. In the second half of the 20th century, with the development of corporate management and government regulation, the figure of the lone tycoon faded into the background. Moreover, historians and economists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries note that many legends about the continuous innovation of entrepreneurs do not take into account the institutional and political factors that contributed to their success ^[15]. For example, lobbying for favorable laws and the use of monopoly power played no less a role than the personal talent of a business leader. Thus, the modernist myth of the titan entrepreneur, although it laid the foundation for the cultural ideal of a business leader, was largely debunked by the end of the 20th century: it turned out that exploitation and contradictory consequences for society were hidden behind the facade of heroism. As a result, at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries, the once integral image of the "titan of industry" was no longer perceived positively. Its evolution and decomposition into contradictory components paved the way for a postmodern rethinking of entrepreneurial identity, which will be discussed later. Society increasingly sees the modern entrepreneur as a twofold figure: on the one hand, the creator of progress, on the other, the source of social upheaval. This shift in perception paves the way for the transformation of the very narrative of entrepreneurship, characteristic of the postmodern era.

The transition to postmodernity: the blurring of "big narratives"

In the second half of the 20th century, the socio-economic landscape underwent radical changes that undermined the foundations of the former heroic narrative. Industrial society has transformed into a post-industrial one: factories and mass production have been replaced by an economy of services, information and high technologies. Globalization has opened up national markets to transnational competition, making stable career paths more difficult. The neoliberal reforms of the 1980s (deregulation, privatization, and the reduction of the role of the state) proclaimed entrepreneurship as the foundation of development, stimulating the cult of startups and individual initiative. However, at the same time, the risks have increased: constant innovation and crises have made the economy more volatile and employment unstable. Under these conditions, the old confidence in linear progress led by great industrial leaders has been shaken.

The cultural context of postmodernity, in the apt words of J.F. Lyotard, is characterized by "distrust of meta-narratives" ^{[8, p. 10]} – large comprehensive ideas such as global progress through science and capital. This distrust has also affected the narrative of entrepreneurship: you can no longer safely believe that one businessman hero will save society with his genius. Instead of a single plot, there are many local success and failure stories. Postmodern thinkers such as J. Baudrillard pointed out that reality is gradually dissolving into games of signs and simulations – society has replaced reality and meaning with symbols and signs ^[2]. Applied to the business sphere, this means strengthening the role of images, brands and media images in comparison with the material side of the business. The image of a successful entrepreneur turns into an autonomous simulacrum broadcast by the media, often regardless of real achievements. In addition, from the perspective of deconstruction (J. Derrida) any "natural" image of an entrepreneur is broken down into discursive constructions – the hidden prerequisites and rhetorical techniques through which his heroic aura was created are revealed.

All these shifts have led to a fundamental change in the entrepreneur's self-understanding. If modernity offered a relatively stable ideal (a rational industrial worker who has been building his empire for centuries), then postmodernity highlights flexibility and adaptability. Entrepreneur is no longer a monolithic title, but a fluid set of roles that change depending on the context. In a rapidly changing market environment, the ability to continuously learn, willingness to change course, and creativity are valued. A type of "serial entrepreneur" has emerged, launching a number of startups one after another, instead of identifying himself with one company all his life. Identity becomes an open–ended project - it has to be constructed and reconstructed on the go. As Z. notes. According to Bauman, the modern individual is offered "the freedom to become anyone" ^{[1, p. 70]}, but this freedom on the other hand carries the uncertainty and transience of fixed roles. As a result, the modernist heroism of entrepreneurship leaves only one possible scenario, along with many others that are emphatically situational and relative. Flexibility, innovativeness, and the ability to present oneself displace the features of the Promethean industrialist, forming a new understanding of what it means to be an entrepreneur in the postmodern era.

The transition to the digital age also played a role: the development of computers and the Internet at the end of the 20th century created new niches for entrepreneurship, reducing barriers to entry into global markets. As a result, the dominant figure of the entrepreneur has also changed: instead of a manufacturer or financier, it has become a technical innovator, an "IT specialist" capable of founding a billion-dollar company from a garage. Such stories have become part of a new mythology (for example, the legend of Apple's origins in Jobs' garage), but they are much more diverse and short–lived in essence than the century-old dynasties of the industrial era.

It is important that postmodernity has opened up a space for alternative entrepreneurial narratives. In addition to the purely commercial image, a discourse of social entrepreneurship has emerged – a businessman as an agent of social change, solving social problems, and not just making a profit. The popularization of environmental awareness, human rights, and gender equality has led to a rethink of who can be an entrepreneur. Critics pointed out that the modernist "businessman hero" was almost exclusively a man and a Westerner; now the stories of women entrepreneurs, start-ups from developing countries, representatives of creative industries, etc. are becoming louder. The entrepreneur's identity becomes pluralistic and contextual – there is no single model that is recognized as the only true one.

There has been a shift in the world of work from the "career for life" model to a project-based approach. Instead of a linear climb up the career ladder, it's a series of temporary projects, contracts, and startups. This means that the individual himself is forced to behave more and more like an "entrepreneur of his own career": plan a personal brand, acquire new competencies, and constantly redefine his professional role. Thus, flexibility and instability become the norm not only for business, but also for the identity of people in business. An entrepreneur today can alternately act as a founder, a hired manager, an investor, and an "evangelist" of an idea, moving from role to role depending on the possibilities. His self-identification is less fixed and more influenced by external discourses (fashion, trends, market expectations) than that of his modern predecessor.

Constructing an entrepreneurial identity in media and culture

In the postmodern era, mass media and popular culture are becoming key arenas in which the image of an entrepreneur is being built. Marketing and business discourse is increasingly consciously using storytelling techniques – creating an exciting narrative around the company and its founder. The cult of startups encourages stories of "geniuses in the garage," which have transformed the success stories of firms like Apple or Google into a modern epic. Almost every startup today has its own legend about its origin, intended for investors and the press. A template is being formed in business media: a charismatic (often young) founder who challenged the status quo and achieved success through perseverance and innovation. This narrative simplifies reality, but is extremely effective at engaging audiences and inspiring new entrepreneurs. According to the researchers, entrepreneurship is at the heart of the mythology of the technology industry, fueling unconditional faith in startup heroes and their innovations.

However, such myth-making also leads to the effect of alienation. The life stories of real entrepreneurs are often "tailored" to a convenient plot, which creates a gap between the public image and reality. Media discourse selectively highlights successes and smooths out failures, forming an idealized image. This can create high expectations and illusions for the general public. Young people inspired by the examples of "startup unicorns" face cognitive dissonance when the real entrepreneurial path turns out to be much more difficult and prosaic than shown in motivational videos. We can talk about a kind of media pipeline for the production of meanings, where specific biographies turn into replicated cases. As a result, entrepreneurs themselves sometimes begin to live by the laws of a plot invented for them, striving to conform to the media ideal of a "successful leader," which psychologically distances them from their own authentic experience. This imbalance between image and reality is a manifestation of the postmodern gap between sign and meaning, which Baudrillard wrote about ^[2].

Pop culture adds new facets to the construction of entrepreneurial identity. Cinema and television offered dramatic images of business leaders to a wide audience. Films like "The Social Network" (2010) showed the contradictory path of a young technology entrepreneur, combining elements of the hero's ascent and anti-criticism of his methods. Biographical dramas about Steve Jobs or the founders of large companies have turned business history into a popular genre. In parallel, reality shows have made entrepreneurship an object of mass entertainment. Shows like "The Apprentice" or "Sharks of Business" (analogous to "Shark Tank") stage business as an elimination game where startups compete for the approval of celebrity investors. Millions of viewers watch as the American dream comes true or is shattered by the tough questions of the jury – thus the entrepreneurial narrative is spectacularized, transformed into a show. The result was the transformation of some businessmen into pop stars: for example, Donald Trump from a real estate mogul through the television image of the "big boss" became a nationwide symbol of aggressive entrepreneurship, which eventually contributed to his political career.

The Internet and especially social media have even more radically changed the way entrepreneurs present themselves. There is a phenomenon of influencers – opinion leaders who build a personal brand online and monetize their influence. Many successful entrepreneurs become influencers themselves by actively participating on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, VK, Rutube, where they communicate directly with the audience and shape their image. The identity of a business leader is now broadcast not only through official biographies and interviews, but also through daily posts, blogs, and podcasts. This creates an effect of intimacy: the founder of a startup can share thoughts about productivity in real time or show behind the scenes of the company, creating a sense of "transparency" of the image. However, such mediatization also imposes obligations – an entrepreneur must constantly maintain interest in his person, adhere to a certain style of communication, and actually act as the "face" of the brand around the clock. The boundaries between personal and professional identity are blurring: social media profiles combine business content with elements of personal life, and any actions immediately become public knowledge.

In the context of social media, the idea of "self-branding" has become established: every public figure, and especially an entrepreneur, should deliberately build an image that sets him apart from others. Management consultants at the end of the 20th century urged: "think of yourself as a brand." Now it has become a mass practice, from the CEO to the freelancer. Entrepreneurial identity is increasingly perceived as something constructed: a collection of messages, visual images, and values conveyed to the target audience. At the same time, the same person can present different facets on different platforms: for example, on LinkedIn, emphasize professional achievements, and on Instagram – lifestyle and personal hobbies, turning himself into both an expert and a "star" for subscribers. This multiplicity of roles has become the new norm. It provides opportunities for self-expression and influence, but it also requires constant balancing between sincerity and strategy. The slightest slip –up – an unfortunate statement, a scandal - can instantly destroy an online reputation, which makes its management a critical element of entrepreneurial activity.

Thus, media and postmodern culture have a dual effect on the image of an entrepreneur. On the one hand, they enrich it with new plots, make it closer and clearer to the mass audience through stories and images. On the other hand, they also enhance simulation – when the external image begins to live its own life, sometimes eclipsing reality. An entrepreneur is forced to become both a real figure, a hero of a media narrative, and a manager of his own image. His identity is largely formed on the screen – TV, computer, smartphone – and this is an integral feature of entrepreneurship in the 21st century.

The platform economy and the "self-entrepreneur"

The growth of digital platforms in the last two decades has led to further individualization and commercialization of labor. Services like Uber, YandexGo, Airbnb, YouTube, VK, and many freelance exchanges have implemented a new logic in which each participant acts as an independent entrepreneur, even if, in fact, they remain part of a large corporate ecosystem. In the platform economy, a person provides personal resources – a car, housing, time, talent – directly to consumers through the mediation of a global online marketplace. This model is presented as the democratization of business: "become your own boss," "earn money at a convenient time." Indeed, millions of people have gained the opportunity to monetize their skills and possessions without traditional barriers. The taxi driver is now referred to as the "partner" of the service and decides for himself when to work; the apartment owner turns into a small entrepreneur in the hospitality industry; the author of the video channel competes with television networks.

However, the rhetoric of freedom hides another side: the platform rigidly sets the rules of the game and takes a commission, effectively controlling the distribution of income. Formally working "for themselves," individuals actually depend on rating and search algorithms, user reviews, and conditions set by the corporation. The new labor model largely blurs the line between an employee and an entrepreneur, but at the same time transfers market risks to the individual. The work is becoming more and more project–based and fragmentary: the YandexGo driver is an entrepreneur for exactly as long as there are orders through the app; the blogger's popularity is fragile and requires constant attention from the audience. Thus, the platform economy reinforces what sociologist G. Standing called "precarity" – a state of insecurity and instability of work, masked by the attractive idea of universal entrepreneurship ^[16].

At the same time, platforms generate a new type of self-representation. Each participant has to build a mini-brand and manage their reputation. Drivers monitor the star rating and customer reviews, trying to increase the "attractiveness of the service" – in fact, they are engaged in marketing their own personality. Airbnb users design their home pages with professional care, including photos, stories about themselves as a hospitable host, and the same storytelling elements. Freelancers on online platforms are forced to constantly compete for projects, literally selling themselves (their profile, portfolio, reviews) as a product. Even science has received the term prosumer (producer-consumer), reflecting the merging of roles: the customer of the service simultaneously acts as a small entrepreneur on the platform. The line between personal and professional identity is blurred – the individual is always "on the case", always in the image of a helpful service provider. This is a new dimension of entrepreneurial identity: it is replicated by a lot of people who were previously perceived simply as employees or consumers, but now they understand themselves through the prism of business roles.

The described changes fit well into the concept of "entrepreneur himself", developed by Michel Foucault. In the lectures of 1978-79, Foucault noted that neoliberalism reformats subjectivity: now a person is thought of as capital and an enterprise that he must manage. "... replacing homo economicus as a partner of exchange with homo economicus as his own entrepreneur, who is his own capital, his own producer, his own source of income." ^{[6, p. 285]}. This definition captures the essence of the biopolitical rationality of late capitalism: each individual must treat himself as a company, invest in his development (education, health, image) and be responsible for the results. The state and institutions encourage rather than coerce – through the discourse of motivation, success, and the need to "be competitive." As a result, a person internally learns the attitudes of self-discipline and self-control. One's own body and psyche are becoming objects of management: hence the surge in popularity of productivity tracking, healthy lifestyle as a moral obligation, and various personal growth trainings. The entrepreneurial ethos extends to all spheres of life, forming what Foucault called a "manageable but autonomous subject" – an ideal recipient of power who directs himself according to his economic goals.

The philosophy of postmodernity develops this theme, emphasizing that the subject in such conditions becomes both an exploiter and an exploited. Khan figuratively writes that a modern individual is a "self–exploiting voluntary worker" who unites both the master and the worker ^[7]. In the absence of external coercion, people drive themselves into new forms of labor dependence – they voluntarily recycle, turning their "favorite business" into an endless exhausting project. Khan characterizes our time as a "society of achievements," where we no longer just obey discipline, but are obsessed with productivity: its inhabitants are no longer "subjects of obedience," but "subjects of achievement." They are their own entrepreneurs ^{[7, pp.55-64]}. Achieving success becomes an imperative, and failure becomes a personal fault. As a result, a paradox arises: neoliberal culture proclaims the autonomy of the individual, but this autonomy turns into total conformity to market demands. A new type of person must constantly reinvent and sell himself anew – otherwise he "drops out of the game." "Unlimited 'can' is the positive modal verb of the achievement society. Its collective plural form in the statement “Yes, we can” It expresses the positive nature of the achievement society. A project, initiative, and motivation take the place of a ban, order, and law. The disciplinary society is still run by “No". His negativity produces a madman and a criminal. The society of achievements, in turn, generates a depressed person and a loser" ^{[7, p. 57]}.

Postmodern deconstruction reveals that identity in the context of platform capitalism is finally losing its stable core. It breaks down into a set of roles and simulacra circulating in the digital space. An entrepreneur's personal brand can completely obscure his real self, turning into a self-sufficient image. Sometimes this leads to extreme cases where the image of success is maintained at all costs, even to deception – the example of the Theranos startup is illustrative, where the charisma of the founder and an attractive legend actually replaced the missing technology until the illusion collapsed. Such cases demonstrate the power of symbolic capital.: reputation, trust, and attention become just as important as material results. The reputational aspect of being a self–employed entrepreneur is extremely vulnerable - digital memory stores mistakes, and negative reviews spread instantly. Therefore, impression and risk management becomes a part of an entrepreneur's daily work. Every communication – tweet, post, comment – is assessed as a contribution to personal trust capital or, conversely, as a threat to it. In fact, a modern entrepreneur is a manager not only of his business, but also of his public identity.

Thus, in the platform-digital era, the shift that has emerged in postmodernity is coming to an end: entrepreneurial identity becomes a dynamic project of self-presentation, continuous self-improvement. In a certain sense, everyone is drawn into the entrepreneurial discourse, forced to compete in the "personality market." As Khan summarizes, nowadays everyone is an entrepreneur of their own identity and is forced to work tirelessly to serve their entrepreneurial ambitions ^{[7, pp. 55, 144-145]}. This brings new opportunities for self–realization-but also new forms of addiction, stress, and control, albeit invisible ones. The entrepreneur is finally transformed from a fixed social role into a multidimensional construct supported by himself and the surrounding society.

Conclusion

The analysis shows a striking contrast between the modernist and postmodern narratives of entrepreneurship. In the modern era, an entrepreneur possessed a relatively integral identity – he was perceived as an innovative hero whose personal qualities (determination, rationality, charisma) directly lead society to progress. This image was supported by the dominant meta-narrative of faith in scientific, technological and economic progress, which had a clear ethical connotation: the entrepreneur acted as a benefactor, the "prometheus" of modernization. On the contrary, in the postmodern period, any such comprehensive scheme has collapsed. Entrepreneurial identity has fragmented into many possible roles and interpretations, none of which claims to be universal. A modern entrepreneur can be a high-tech startup geek, a social activist businessman, and an influencer who sells his lifestyle - and all these options coexist, sometimes combined in the biography of one person.

The dilemma of authenticity has become central in the new environment. If a modernist industrial leader could not think about the "authenticity" of his image – he simply acted according to the social role of an industrialist – then a postmodern entrepreneur inevitably reflects on his self-presentation. When identity is a construct, the question arises: what is the "real me"? The desire to look successful, charismatic, and meet the expectations of investors and the public can conflict with inner feelings. Many entrepreneurs of the 21st century are balancing between sincere self-realization and the need to play a certain role. This situation confirms the correctness of the classic of sociology E. Hoffman, who compared social life with the theater: an entrepreneur today actually becomes both a director and a performer of his own "production" ^[4]. The boundary between a person and his image is blurred, and the search for authenticity becomes a continuous task. As Z. Bauman noted, the very concept of "identity" refers us to the image of logic and consistency – to what is so lacking in the fluid experience of postmodernism ^[1]. The individual tries to "solidify the fluid", to gain integrity, but is faced with the fact that modern culture encourages constant change and performativity.

There is also the question of the degree of freedom and manipulation in the formation of identity. On the one hand, postmodernity has freed man from rigid boundaries – there is no longer a single canon to which he must conform, and this opens up space for creativity and self-building. An entrepreneur can choose the image and the strategy of self-presentation that are closer to his values, and through them find his niche. This situation is theoretically favorable for genuine self-realization: everyone creates their own story, not imposed "from above." On the other hand, the very need to continuously construct oneself can be seen as a new form of pressure. Instead of just "being himself," an individual is forced to constantly evaluate himself from the outside, as if to manage the marketing campaign of his own "self." Some philosophers point to an element of manipulation: both by the system (which imposes the ideal of an infinitely plastic, productive subject) and by the entrepreneur himself, who can consciously build an image for profit. The line between self-expression and self-promotion is becoming increasingly thin.

The philosophical implications of the transformation of entrepreneurial identity are ambiguous. First, it calls into question the classical notions of the subject as a stable, autonomous source of action. The postmodern entrepreneur is a decentered subject, largely generated by external discourses (economic, media, cultural). This is consistent with the post-structuralist idea of the "death of the author" and the constructibility of the "I". But in practical terms, this state of affairs causes existential anxiety: if there is no stable core, what should life choices and ethical principles be based on? Secondly, the ongoing changes raise questions about business ethics. When the image may not correspond to reality, how can we guarantee trust and responsibility? If an entrepreneur is an actor playing a role, then where is the line between acceptable "image-making" and deception? Modern scandals involving one-day companies and falsification of financial statements reflect this crisis of authenticity and trust.

Another important aspect is the impact of new identity practices on public relations. If everyone is an "entrepreneur for himself," then society turns into a set of competitors, which is fraught with a weakening of solidarity. Already, researchers are noting a blurring of the boundaries between working time and personal life, an increase in anxiety and burnout syndrome among startups and freelancers. This shows that endless flexibility and self-exploitation have a human cost. Perhaps there is a value revision ahead of us: how to balance freedom of expression with the need for a stable identity? How can we preserve the human dimension in a world where everything has the potential to capitalize? These issues go beyond the purely economic agenda and address the very foundations of how we understand ourselves and our activities.

To summarize, it can be noted that the transition from heroic modernity to a postmodern set of roles in entrepreneurship means not just a change of images, but also a profound restructuring of the relationship between the individual, society and the economy. The entrepreneur has transformed from a legendary "titan" standing above the masses into an immanent part of a networked society – a hub of many communications and influences. His identity is no longer given once and for all, but becomes a process reflecting the fluidity of our time. Awareness of this process, supported by the ideas of postmodern philosophy, allows us to better understand not only the phenomenon of entrepreneurship itself, but also the broader changes in how a person constructs his "I" in the modern world. His image will continue to change with the evolution of discourses, and a philosophical understanding of entrepreneurship will remain in demand, helping to critically accompany these processes.