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.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
