A Stage Model of Social Movement Co-Optation: Community Mediation in the United States

Abstract

The community mediation movement in the United States arose in the late 1970s as an alternative to a formalized justice system that was perceived to be costly, time consuming, and unresponsive to individual and community needs. Community mediation advocates also valued community training, social justice, volunteerism, empowerment, and local control over conflict resolution mechanisms. But over the past quarter century, community mediation has become increasingly institutionalized and has undergone various degrees of co-optation in its evolving relationship with the court system.Drawing on the literatures of dispute resolution, co-optation, and social movements, we analyze the evolution of community mediation and identify the degrees and dimensions of its co-optation. Thus, we develop a four-stage model of co-optation as it has occurred within the community mediation movement, identifying multiple steps in each stage. This analysis facilitates greater understanding of specific events, particular processes, and individual decisions and dilemmas that mediation activists face in their working relationships with their communities and the formal legal system. Further, scholars studying similar processes in other social movements may find that this stage model of co-optation, in whole or in part, is useful to their analyses of other movements.

A case study of the early institutionalization process of a restorative justice social movement organization.

“…The closest exceptions that relate to this topic come from the research focusing on the benefits of insider status (Banaszak, 2005;Gagne, 1996;Santoro & McGuire, 1997) and works by Lounsbury and colleagues' examining the environmental recycling movement (Lounsbury 2001(Lounsbury , 2005Lounsbury et al, 2003). But generally, theories of co-optation speak about the institution as the agent in this process (Coy & Hedeen, 2005;Piven & Cloward, 1977). The findings in this case study introduce a new possibility that the literature on movements has not yet considered.…”

“…Rather than remaining separate from the system and changing it from outside the court walls, they embedded their organization within the juvenile justice system early in their development. They adapted the language and structure of the criminal justice institution, they allowed the system's influence on their goals and practices, and they relied on system involvement more than community support (Coy & Hedeen, 2005) The structure of the organization is the first mechanism where this process is recognizable. Early in the establishment of the organization, RJL provided system players a high level of participation in the decision-making structure.…”

“…Regardless of the debate, there is widespread agreement that when movements do progress towards institutionalization, their alternative ideals and goals are modified to maintain the established institution (Morrill, 2006) and they may become coopted by the established institution (Coy & Hedeen, 2005;Osterman, 2006). The mainline assumption in the literature is that the gradual move towards institutionalization and possibly co-optation, when it does occur, leads to the demise of a movement (Blumer, 1969;Mauss, 1975;Osterman, 2006;Tilly, 1978;Zald & Ash, 1966).…”

“…Accordingly, many researchers and activists perceive co-optation as a blunting of challenger movements (Coy & Hedeen, 2005;Piven & Cloward, 1977). In their research on the community mediation movement, Coy and Hedeen (2005) apply DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) concept of coercive isomorphism to create a process model of cooptation.…”

“…In their research on the community mediation movement, Coy and Hedeen (2005) apply DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) concept of coercive isomorphism to create a process model of cooptation. They define this term as the "influential role of powerful exogenous institutions and resource providers, particularly the state, in fostering or imposing the reproduction of organizational patterns and values that reinforce the status quo" (p. 408).…”