Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

2.1.2.03 Husserl used the term ‘immanence’ which is defined by Guigno n [2006, p111] as
“the inclusion or inherence of one thing inside another. It describes a relation among
things, but says nothing about what kinds of things they are. It describes entities in relation
to one another, but not in their mode of being as suc h, not as entities”. Such immanence
could be inherent inside a discourse.
2.1.2.04 Husserl also “appeals explicitly to Descartes’ definition of substance as that
which depends on no other for its own existence” [Guignon, 2006, p111], which begs the
question whether a discourse (or discipline) has suc h substance and depe nds on no ot her
for its existence. This independence of existence calls for an epistemological perspective
and as Mills comments “he (Foucault) tried to move away from the not ion of the Cartesian
subject, the subject whose existence depends on its ability to see itself as unique and as self
contained, d istinct from others …” [Mills, 2004, p30]. As can be seen, in later sections, the
discipline of entrepreneurship has evolved in part from other disciplines and still has
significant levels of interdisciplinary interaction with other disciplines, suggesting that
Foucault was right in moving away from that which is ‘unique and self contained’.
2.1.2.05 Also from an epistemological perspective, Heidegger [1993] commented on
ontology as being “ensnared by tradition” [p65] and also, like Foucault, sought to escape
the tradition imposed by Descartes which he described as a process whereby “the
categorical content of traditional ontology is transferred to these beings with corresponding
formalizations and purely negative restrictions, or else dialectic is called upon to help with
an ontological interpretation of the substantiality of the subject” [p66].
2.1.2.06 As indicated in the introduction, the epistemology followed in this dissertation
tends towards works of Foucault and Heidegger who present a more subjectivist – relativist
approach when compared to Descartes and Kant. Accordingly in my model, the definition
of discourse (as included within the square in Model A, refer Graphic 2a) is that which is
cont ained in the ‘-logy’ or logos, being that which currently ‘has a relationship to’. The
discourse is smaller that the ontic state yet larger than the discipline, and it is possible,
32