Co-option: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Luckas-bot (talk | contribs)
m r2.7.1) (Robot: Adding uk:Кооптація
expansion of Selznick TVA formal/informal cooptation
Line 3: Line 3:
A '''co-option''' (also '''cooptation''', '''co-optation''', '''cooption''') is an act of absorbing or assimilating. It is normally used in the context of a group of persons assimilating a weaker or smaller group, with the intention of neutralizing a threat from the weaker group. Verb forms include '''coopt''' and '''co-opt'''.
A '''co-option''' (also '''cooptation''', '''co-optation''', '''cooption''') is an act of absorbing or assimilating. It is normally used in the context of a group of persons assimilating a weaker or smaller group, with the intention of neutralizing a threat from the weaker group. Verb forms include '''coopt''' and '''co-opt'''.


In his landmark study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, [[Philip Selznick]] defined cooptation as “absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence” and he defined two ideal types: formal and informal. Formal cooptation is publicly acknowledged, and done for two reasons: when legitimacy of organization or leadership is questioned by the governed or to create reliable channels for managerial communication and direction. Formal cooptation generally does not share actual power with co-opted, but instead shares the responsibility for power.
'''Co-optation''' may also refer to the tactic of neutralizing or winning over a minority by assimilating them into the established group or culture.<ref>[[Philip Selznick]], "[[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] and the Grassroots" (1949).</ref>
Selznick defined informal cooptation as a response to specific individuals or groups who command necessary resources which therefore resulted in the co-opted party receiving real influence. Public acknowledgment would undermine legitimacy of authority, so the organization may refrain from explicitly recognizing this informal relationship.
<ref>[[Philip Selznick]], "[[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] and the Grassroots" (1949) p.13-15 .</ref>


The term may refer to an election in which members of a [[committee]] (or similar group) vote in order to fill a vacancy on that committee or group. Where a small committee is originally elected using a method of [[proportional representation]], a co-option may be thought unsuitable as the newly elected member will then not necessarily represent the interests of the group represented by the vacating member.
The term may refer to an election in which members of a [[committee]] (or similar group) vote in order to fill a vacancy on that committee or group. Where a small committee is originally elected using a method of [[proportional representation]], a co-option may be thought unsuitable as the newly elected member will then not necessarily represent the interests of the group represented by the vacating member.

Revision as of 03:13, 10 March 2012

A co-option (also cooptation, co-optation, cooption) is an act of absorbing or assimilating. It is normally used in the context of a group of persons assimilating a weaker or smaller group, with the intention of neutralizing a threat from the weaker group. Verb forms include coopt and co-opt.

In his landmark study of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Philip Selznick defined cooptation as “absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence” and he defined two ideal types: formal and informal. Formal cooptation is publicly acknowledged, and done for two reasons: when legitimacy of organization or leadership is questioned by the governed or to create reliable channels for managerial communication and direction. Formal cooptation generally does not share actual power with co-opted, but instead shares the responsibility for power. Selznick defined informal cooptation as a response to specific individuals or groups who command necessary resources which therefore resulted in the co-opted party receiving real influence. Public acknowledgment would undermine legitimacy of authority, so the organization may refrain from explicitly recognizing this informal relationship. [1]

The term may refer to an election in which members of a committee (or similar group) vote in order to fill a vacancy on that committee or group. Where a small committee is originally elected using a method of proportional representation, a co-option may be thought unsuitable as the newly elected member will then not necessarily represent the interests of the group represented by the vacating member.


Other disciplines


References

  1. ^ Philip Selznick, "TVA and the Grassroots" (1949) p.13-15 .