Powerholders may respond to this mobilization with genuine support for the movement's call to action. Yet, good intentions alone may be insufficient to mitigate the likeliness of co- optation. The tendency towards co-optation is, to a certain extent, inherent to the structures of interaction between challengers to powerful institutions and powerholders themselves. 11 Stage Two: Co-optation Occurs to Neutralize the Threat Co-Optation of Language Movements are defined by their rallying cry, the unique words and phrases used to encourage people to unite and act in support of a particular goal. Language may be intentionally provocative to draw attention to the cause. By co-opting a movement's language, powerholders can perform solidarity with a movement while simultaneously diluting its effectiveness and radical nature. This tactic may enable powerholders to redefine a movement’s language, distancing it from the revolutionary ideas that it initially evoked. Take, for example, the co-optation of the terms ‘reimagine’ and ‘transformation’ used by activists calling for the abolition of the child welfare system. 12 Foundations, system leaders, and organizations use these terms to describe fundamentally different goals. Co-opting and redefining language defuses and dilutes demands for change. As said by famed community organizer Saul Alinksy,
“Action comes from keeping the heat on. No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.” 13 Extinguishing heated calls for legislative change snuffs out any chance for meaningful policy change. Co-Optation of People Powerholders will also seek to neutralize a movement by co-opting its members via direct inclusion in decision-making or employment. In labor organizing, this is referred to as “labor busting.” In more colloquial terms, it is called buying people off. 14 Co-optation of people can occur even when powerholders are earnestly working to build consensus with and foster representation of the community. But consensus and co-optation can appear nearly identical in bodies marked by stark power imbalances. One tactic is “channeling.” 15 Powerholders will create centralized, orderly discussion and decision-making channels and invite individuals with lived experience to participate. 16 These channels include advisory boards, committees, and other workgroups. Channels replicate, not replace, the unequal balances of power between system leaders and those directly impacted by the system. Substantive power over the structure and mandate of channels is held by powerholders, while responsibility for administrative functions is shared with people with lived experience. 17 One pervasive example of how this plays out in practice is that advisory boards are structured so that child welfare system leaders retain sole oversight ______________ 11 Coy, Patrick G., and Timothy Hedeen. “A Stage Model of Social Movement Co-Optation: Community Mediation in the United States.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, 2005, pp. 405–35. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4120946. 12 Detlaff, Alan, et al. “The Power of Co-Opting: Language Is Changing, But Will It Change The Status Quo?” Upend Movement, 7 Apr. 2022, https://upendmovement. org/2022/04/07/language/. 13 Alinsky, Saul David. Rules for Radicals. 1972. 14 Alinsky, Saul. (2010). The War on Poverty‐Political Pornography1. Journal of Social Issues. 21. 41 - 47. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1965.tb00482.x. 15 Coy, Patrick G., and Timothy Hedeen. “A Stage Model of Social Movement Co-Optation: Community Mediation in the United States.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 3, 2005, pp. 405–35. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/4120946.
The Cycle of Co-optation
Community Mobilization Begins
Mobilization Becomes a Threat to the Status Quo
Nothing fundamentally changes
System leaders buy off movement leaders, through emplyment or paid positions on committees
System leaders co-opt language of advocates to act as if they stand in solidarity
16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.
Illustration by Author
FIJ Quarterly | Summer 2022 | 13
Powered by FlippingBook