Mindful co-optations? Exploring the responses of mindfulness teachers to the risk of co-optation

IF 3.3 3区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organization Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1177/13505084231214763
Erik Mygind du Plessis
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正念共认?探讨正念教师对被收编风险的反应
本文探讨了正念教师对最近关于组织中正念冥想的批判性研究中发现的被收编风险的反应。因此,这种风险对正念教师来说不是启示性的,而是被理解为他们工作的基本条件。通过对正念教师的人种学观察和访谈,本文针对正念冥想被收编的主流概念提出了三种应对方法。一些教师相应地将其视为:(1) 意图问题,正念冥想可以以各种不同的方式进行,这可能会增强或抑制其转化潜力。另一些人则认为,正念冥想的变革潜力在某种程度上与话语和制度框架无关,因此不一定要担心正念冥想被共用。相反,在这种观点中,正念冥想有可能作为(2)特洛伊木马发挥作用;以提高生产力为目的的话语合作,同时通过非话语层面的存在从内部微妙地改变组织。最后,一些教师认为"(非)合作 "问题是一种误导,因为它夸大了这一做法的变革潜 力,以至于(3) 过分夸大了承诺。这些发现引发了随后的概念性讨论,其中提出了一种类型学,包括(1)"知识性共同采用"、(2)"反向共同采用 "和(3)"空洞共同采用 "的概念,以此从理论上解释正念教师的反应,并作为对组织中正念 "结构性共同采用 "这一流行概念的细微补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Organization
Organization MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
53
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.
期刊最新文献
Alter-anthropological thought in organization studies From anti-state Nazism to neo-bureaucracy? Media Review: Lupin: Eradicating the stereotype of the African immigrant Carta Aberta: (In)visibilizing transgender bodies in organizations Rethinking organization studies methods through a posthumanist epistemology of practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1