Co-Optation

Co-optation is a strategy used by dominant institutions or organizations to respond to and potentially neutralize activists who threaten to [Page 194]disrupt the dominant group. The strategy takes a variety of forms, but essentially involves the more powerful organization creating the appearance that it shares the less powerful group's aims, granting some concessions, or sharing power with the less powerful group. The effect is that the activists appear to have earned a compromise or even outright victory, but the underlying behavior of the dominant organization remains unchanged. Co-optation is related to public relations because the strategy often involves communication or forming new patterns of relationships. In critical studies of public relations, co-optation is viewed as a way in which unfair power relationships in society are perpetuated. However, some of the tactics associated with co-optation may actually be good faith efforts by organizations to create symmetrical relationships with activist publics.

Co-optation can take many forms. One of the more common strategies is to identify the organization's opponents and their issues, then invite leaders of the opposition to meet with the organization under the guise of working together to address those issues. Indeed, there might even be plans formulated and partnerships forged. For example, the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from Chesapeake Energy Company, a major natural gas producer, to fund the Club's “Beyond Coal” campaign. While many environmentalists support natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal, the process of extracting natural gas from shale involves some environmentally questionable techniques, such as hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), which may harm water supplies. During the period that the Sierra Club received the donations, its executive director was a vocal advocate for natural gas. Once the donations were revealed, the Sierra Club severed its ties with Chesapeake Energy but still faced questions from its supporters. Partnerships formed under this type of co-optation typically are widely publicized, and the corporation can claim that it is working with activists to achieve shared goals (e.g., protecting the environment). However, in the long run, the underlying operations of the company are largely undisturbed.

Other forms of co-optation involve borrowing the symbols or language of activist movements to make the dominant organization appear to be cooperating with activists’ demands. Some environmentalists have accused corporations of “greenwashing” their products. Environmentalist Andy Rowell offered the examples of “environmentally friendly” automobiles and “ozone friendly” aerosols that while appearing to be responsive to the problem of air pollution actually mask other environmentally damaging corporate practices. Related to this is the use of front organizations with names that make them sound like grassroots citizens groups, but which are funded by corporate interests. For instance, Americans Against Food Taxes is an organization largely funded by the soft-drink industry to oppose efforts by some childhood obesity advocates to tax sugared drinks.

Some activists even cast suspicion on the process of dialogue between corporations and activists, claiming that corporations use discussion as a delaying tactic. This suspicion creates a double bind for corporations that work in good faith to resolve issues with activists. On the one hand, dialogue is an important component of symmetrical relationships with activists; on the other hand, some activists see dialogue as the first step toward co-opting the movement.

...