The entrepreneurial subject has long been a highly contested issue within entrepreneurship research (e.g. Gartner, 1988). In an oft-cited, recent paper Jones and Spicer (2005) introduce Lacan to the field of entrepreneurship research in an attempt to dissect the field’s obsession with the entrepreneur, encouraging researchers to take on the question of the entrepreneurial subject as, precisely, a question – rather than hunting down an answer. As an open-ended, undecided nature, the Lacanian subject, and its inherent lack, has since been invoked to better understand the primus motor of a self-revolutionizing capitalist dynamics and an economy of desire and excess (e.g. Stavrakakis, 2000; Sharpe, 2006; Zupančič, 2006), creativity in organizations and the value of seemingly useless and excessive activities (e.g. Driver 2008; 2009), and the generation and valorization of excess also in a more general sense – and its perverting effects (e.g. Sköld, 2010).
This paper presents and discusses the implications of Lacan's three different subject positions' - psychosis, neurosis, and perversion - for entrepreneurship research. It then goes beyond Lacan to French philosopher Alain Badiou, who has written extensively on the question of the subject. By introducing Badiou's understanding of the faithful, reactive, and obscure subject positions in the domains of art, politics, science and love, and in some way importing them into the field of business studies, we hope to contribute to the debate on the subject in entrepreneurship research, as well as to theoretically explore the relationship between Lacan's and Badiou's understanding of subject positions.