{"title":"Mindful co-optations? Exploring the responses of mindfulness teachers to the risk of co-optation","authors":"Erik Mygind du Plessis","doi":"10.1177/13505084231214763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the responses of mindfulness teachers to the risk of co-optation as identified by recent critical research on mindfulness meditation in organizations. As such, this risk is not revelatory to the mindfulness teachers, but rather understood as a basic condition of their work. Through ethnographic observations and interviews with mindfulness teachers, the paper consequently identifies three responses to the dominant conception of the co-optation of mindfulness meditation. Some teachers accordingly view it as (1) a question of intention, in which mindfulness meditation can be framed in a variety of different ways, which may enhance or curb its transformative potential. Others contend that the transformative potential of the practice is, to a degree, independent of discursive and institutional framings, and that cooptation is not necessarily something to be feared. To the contrary, mindfulness meditation can in this view potentially work as (2) a Trojan horse; discursively co-opted for the purpose of productivity, while subtly changing the organization from within through non-discursive layers of being. Finally, some teachers perceive the question of (non)co-optation as misguided, as it exaggerates the transformative potential of the practice to the point of an (3) overblown promise. These findings prompt a subsequent a conceptual discussion, in which a typology including the notions of (1) “intellectual co-optation,” (2) “inverse co-optation” and (3) “empty co-optation” are suggested as means for theoretically explaining the responses of the mindfulness teachers and as nuancing supplements to the prevailing conception of the “structural co-optation” of mindfulness in organization.","PeriodicalId":48238,"journal":{"name":"Organization","volume":"38 29","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231214763","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper explores the responses of mindfulness teachers to the risk of co-optation as identified by recent critical research on mindfulness meditation in organizations. As such, this risk is not revelatory to the mindfulness teachers, but rather understood as a basic condition of their work. Through ethnographic observations and interviews with mindfulness teachers, the paper consequently identifies three responses to the dominant conception of the co-optation of mindfulness meditation. Some teachers accordingly view it as (1) a question of intention, in which mindfulness meditation can be framed in a variety of different ways, which may enhance or curb its transformative potential. Others contend that the transformative potential of the practice is, to a degree, independent of discursive and institutional framings, and that cooptation is not necessarily something to be feared. To the contrary, mindfulness meditation can in this view potentially work as (2) a Trojan horse; discursively co-opted for the purpose of productivity, while subtly changing the organization from within through non-discursive layers of being. Finally, some teachers perceive the question of (non)co-optation as misguided, as it exaggerates the transformative potential of the practice to the point of an (3) overblown promise. These findings prompt a subsequent a conceptual discussion, in which a typology including the notions of (1) “intellectual co-optation,” (2) “inverse co-optation” and (3) “empty co-optation” are suggested as means for theoretically explaining the responses of the mindfulness teachers and as nuancing supplements to the prevailing conception of the “structural co-optation” of mindfulness in organization.
期刊介绍:
The journal encompasses the full range of key theoretical, methodological and substantive debates and developments in organizational analysis, broadly conceived, identifying and assessing their impacts on organizational practices worldwide. Alongside more micro-processual analyses, it particularly encourages attention to the links between intellectual developments, changes in organizational forms and practices, and broader social, cultural and institutional transformations.