Traditionally, the rationale behind cooperatives has been ascribed to the resolution of market failures (Spear, 2001). In particular, cooperatives help to counter power imbalances on the market by pooling together weaker actors facing domination by another actor (e.g. situations of monopoly/oligopoly, of monopsony/oligopsony). In addition, in apparent contrast to the apolitical nature of cooperatives claimed by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) (Ratner, 2013), there appear to be more political reasons underlying the creation of cooperatives, reflecting objectives of social movements (Schneiberg, 2013).
This conceptual paper draws on Habermas’ thesis of colonisation of the lifeworld, which he developed in his theory of communicative action (1987) and in his account of new social movements (1981) and aims to re-examine critically the role of cooperatives as players in economic and social spheres. Colonisation refers to the mediatisation of the lifeworld “when systemic mechanisms suppress social integration” (Habermas, 1987: 196). Habermas identifies two processes through which colonisation is taking place: juridification and commodification. These processes respectively express the increasing influence of two media, power and money, in the lifeworld. Juridification corresponds to state-led actions to spread bureaucracy and through which it attempts to extend its power by intensifying legal interference in the lifeworld. Commodification corresponds to the intensification of market presence in everyday life (in the lifeworld). It translates the increased monetisation of interactions and the transformation of individuals into consumers in all aspects of their life.
We argue that cooperatives resist to both forms of mediatisation that lead to the colonisation of the lifeworld. On the one hand, cooperatives operate on the market and follow market rules but resist commodification by following at least two sets of practices grounded in the cooperative principles: economic democracy, which leads to social capital creation (Mazzarol et al., 2014), and superposition of member ownership and control. Cooperatives also resist interference of State power, i.e. juridification, through their principle of autonomy and independence which is met by member control. Also, cooperatives resist juridification by bringing together willing individuals experiencing a common need and finding a solution to meet this need on their own, without letting the (welfare) State enter their lifeworld. People decide freely what is best for themselves – the ‘how we live’ that is characteristic of new social movements according to Habermas (1981) – and thereby avoid leaving (institutional) voids in which bureaucracy could interfere to expand the power of the State.
Taking a critical stance on the argument leads us to map cooperatives on a continuum of resistance to both colonisation processes. Indeed, cooperatives may sometimes take some distance with the Rochdale principles, which can eventually result in reinforcing commodification and/or juridification.
Overall, this paper shows that the political role played by cooperatives is often downplayed, in line with the ICA intention to see cooperatives remain apolitical. Habermas’ thesis of colonisation is useful to demonstrate the extent to which cooperatives act purposefully as political actors, in the way cooperative pioneers envisaged it (Ratner, 2013). Cooperatives are intended to act as space of resistance to both commodification and juridification processes for their members. This resistance is however to be considered on a continuum as many cooperatives do not strictly apply all Rochdale principles in their current version. Acknowledging this political role implies changing the standpoint of ICA and part of the scholarly discourse that cooperatives are apolitical and that they are meant to be a complement to capitalist enterprises, rather than substitutes.
References:
Habermas, J. (1981). New social movements. Telos, 49, 33-37.
Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action, Volume two: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. A. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Mazzarol, T., Mamouni Limnios, E., & Reboud, S. (2014). An overview of the research. In T. Mazzarol, S. Reboud, E. Mamouni Limnios, & D. Clark (Eds.), Research handbook on sustainable co-operative enterprise: Case studies of organisational resilience in the co-operative business model (pp. 3-21). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ratner, C. (2013). Cooperation, community, and co-ops in a global era. Heiderlberg: Springer.
Schneiberg, M. (2013). Movements as political conditions for diffusion: Anti-corporate movements and the spread of cooperative forms in American capitalism. Organization Studies, 34(5-6), 653-682.
Spear, R. (2001). United Kingdom: A wide range of social enterprises. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 253-269). London: Routledge.
9. Social and solidarity economy, civil society and social movements
