Co-Optation

Co-optation is a strategy used by dominant institutions or organizations to respond to and eventually neutralize activists who threaten to disrupt the dominant group. The strategy takes a variety of forms, but essentially the more powerful organization creates the appearance that they share the less powerful group's aims and grants some concessions or shares power with the less powerful group. The effect is that the activists appear to have won concessions or even outright victory, but the underlying behavior of the dominant organization remains unchanged. Cooptation 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 seek 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. For example, the leader of an environmental activist group might be invited to join an environmental action group sponsored by a corporation that has been perceived as having a negative impact on the environment. The action group meets regularly with company officials, approves inconsequential changes in operations, and sponsors long-running studies on the quality of the environment. These efforts are widely publicized, and the corporation can claim that it is working with others to protect the environment. However, in the long run, the changes may be minuscule and 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. Andy Rowell (1998) 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.

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