WHAT IS “POLITICAL” AT A FOOD CO-OP?
Notes from September 16, 2026 Food Co-op Dialogue Studio hosted by Jon Steinman (Cooperative Dialogue) and Laura King (Laura King Consulting).
“What do we mean when we describe something as “political” — and how does that shape what we believe is appropriate for a co-op?”
This was the question explored by 24 food co-operators from 18 American food co-ops during the September 2026 Dialogue Studio – a monthly gathering to explore questions that matter to the future of food co-ops.
This recap is not intended to offer a definition or a resolution, but is a contribution to the wider food co-op community — a record of some of the tensions, questions, and possibilities that emerged.
KEY QUESTIONS PARTICIPANTS WORKED THROUGH
What does “political” mean?
Can a co-op actually be neutral?
How do co-ops distinguish politics from partisanship?
Who gets to decide what the co-op stands for?
What happens when the desire for inclusion, healing, or belonging conflicts with the desire to name or act on issues affecting the community?
The dialogue revealed that the word political carries a range of meanings and reactions among board directors and managers at food co-ops.
For some participants it immediately suggested division, caution, conflict, or avoidance.
For others, it pointed to something broader: the ways that people, institutions, and communities exercise power, make choices, allocate resources, and shape the conditions in which people live.
A recurring thread was the possibility that the best question may not be whether something is “political,” but, what does a co-op do with the fact that so many of its decisions have political implications?
The dialogue surfaced a number of interconnected tensions about the nature of cooperatives, democratic participation, belonging, and the exercise of power.
KEY THEMES
“Political” can mean very different things
The dialogue revealed that the word political carries very different meanings. For some, it immediately evokes partisan politics, contentious public issues, advocacy, or the possibility of division. For others, political describes something much broader: power, values, resource allocation, collective decision-making, and the ways that people organize themselves and their communities.
This distinction became important because it changes the question.
If “political” means partisan, a co-op might reasonably seek to remain nonpartisan.
If it means exercising power or making collective choices about values and resources, then politics is much harder to separate from cooperative life
Political does not necessarily mean partisan
A recurring distinction — and one that seemed to generate considerable traction — was between political and partisan.
There was recognition that a co-op can be political by its very nature without aligning itself with a political party or endorsing particular candidates. Cooperatives make choices about how resources are organized, whose needs are considered, what kinds of businesses and relationships they support, and what values they embody.
At the same time, the distinction did not appear to eliminate the underlying tension. The dialogue revealed how even actions intended to be nonpartisan could be experienced as political by members who disagree with them. At times, the question seemed to be less about whether a co-op can somehow eliminate politics and more about how it chooses to engage with political differences.
Is neutrality actually neutral?
A particularly provocative strand of the dialogue was the idea that trying not to be political can itself be a political choice.
If a co-op chooses not to speak, advocate, take a position, or engage with an issue, that choice can have consequences. From one perspective, neutrality can preserve a space where members with different political perspectives can belong. From another, neutrality can mean declining to use the collective power of the cooperative in circumstances where its values or principles might call for action. As one participant considered, “by staying neutral, we may lose power”.
The dialogue did not resolve this tension but emphasized it.
On one hand, it was suggested how neutrality might not necessarily be an absence of values or consequences if it helps preserve a space for people with different political perspectives.
On the other, choosing neutrality can mean choosing not to exercise the cooperative’s collective power, or inadvertently creating space for other power players to exercise theirs
Cooperative Principles may offer a useful point of reference
Several strands of dialogue converged around a consideration; Is the question, “Is this political?” the most useful question for a co-op to ask?
A different approach was proposed. Instead of trying to determine whether something is sufficiently “political” to warrant action, or sufficiently “nonpolitical” to be acceptable, the co-op can ask whether a choice is consistent with what the organization exists to do and with the Cooperative Principles.
The dialogue also suggested that political dimensions are present in many decisions that would not ordinarily be described as political. Choosing a supplier, deciding what products to carry, determining what appears in the store, establishing organizational policies, or deciding how the co-op uses its resources can all express values and affect the distribution of power and resources.
Seen this way, the question may not be “Is this political?” but, “How should we make decisions when our choices have political dimensions?” Cooperative Principles and purpose may provide a starting point for answering that question.
Politics is embedded in everyday co-op decisions
The dialogue repeatedly expanded the boundaries of what might be considered political.
Choices about what products to carry, who to purchase from, which contractors or suppliers to work with, what messages appear in the store, how policies are written, how money is spent, and which issues receive attention can all reflect values and distribute resources or influence. This raised the possibility that political may be less of a category of activity and more of a characteristic that can be present to varying degrees throughout cooperative life.
If this is the case, the challenge might not be how to determine which activities are political and which are not, but to develop ways of making and communicating decisions when their political dimensions become significant.
Democracy means making room for disagreement
Another strong thread concerned the relationship between democracy and disagreement.
There was recognition that democratic governance is inherently messy. Members may disagree with one another. Boards may disagree among each other or with management and staff. Different constituencies may have different expectations of the cooperative. There may be no position that satisfies everyone.
Rather than treating disagreement as evidence that something has gone wrong, the dialogue explored whether the ability to hold disagreement constructively is itself part of democratic practice.
This creates a different understanding of the co-op's role. Democracy does not necessarily require arriving at agreement, but it might require creating opportunities for people to express different perspectives, listen to one another, and participate in decisions that affect them.
Who gets to decide and whose voice counts?
Underlying many of the questions about politics was a more fundamental governance question:
Who gets to decide what the co-op stands for?
The dialogue surfaced tensions among members, boards, managers and staff. A board may feel responsible for representing the membership. Staff may experience the organization differently from the board. Members may have very different understandings of what they joined the co-op to do.
This becomes especially complicated when an individual board member, manager, or staff member has a strong personal commitment to an issue. Where does personal conviction end and the voice of the cooperative begin?
The emerging question appeared to not only be whether a co-op should take a position, but what process gives the organization authority to take that position?
Belonging cannot only mean avoiding discomfort
The dialogue revealed a tension between belonging and discomfort.
The desire was expressed for a co-op to be a place where people with different political perspectives can feel welcome. At the same time, avoiding difficult subjects in the name of comfort was also considered to have consequences. What feels neutral or comfortable to one person may not feel that way to another.
This appeared to complicate the idea of a co-op as a shared community. If belonging requires that nobody ever feels challenged, disagreement may have to be suppressed. But if belonging includes the capacity to encounter perspectives or realities that are uncomfortable, then the organization needs practices that help people remain in relationship through that discomfort.
The dialogue left this as an important tension rather than resolving it.
Another provocative question for food co-ops to consider; “What does ‘belonging’ mean at a food co-op?”
Growth makes these questions harder
The question of politics was aptly connected to the evolution of a cooperative over time as the dialogue expanded into a 50-year context.
Founding members may have a relatively clear understanding of why the co-op exists and what it is meant to accomplish. But as membership grows and changes, that shared understanding can become less obvious. A growing co-op may increasingly become composed of people with very different values, political perspectives, expectations, and relationships to the cooperative.
The dialogue suggested that the question of what is “political” and how that determines what’s appropriate for a co-op become increasingly important and complex as cooperatives mature
NEW QUESTIONS FOR FOOD CO-OPS TO CONSIDER
The dialogue did not produce a single definition of political, nor did it establish a common position about what food co-ops should or should not do.
Instead, it surfaced a set of additional questions that appear to be deeply interconnected:
Can a cooperative be nonpartisan without trying to be apolitical?
When does neutrality protect belonging, and when does it prevent a co-op from acting on its values?
Can cooperative principles provide a more useful compass than the political/nonpolitical distinction?
How should a co-op distinguish individual conviction from organizational voice?
What processes give a board or management legitimate authority to speak or act on behalf of members?
How can a cooperative create belonging without requiring the avoidance of difficult or uncomfortable subjects?
As membership becomes more diverse, what creates a shared sense of purpose?
And perhaps most fundamentally: Can disagreement itself be understood as part of what a democratic cooperative is designed to hold?
THE VALUE OF THE DIALOGUE FOR PARTICIPANTS
Some of the most significant insight did not come from the content of the dialogue, but from the experience of having the dialogue.
Food cooperators reflected on the value of being able to explore a question without being expected to solve it. Some described leaving with greater clarity about the direction of their thinking, even though they had not reached an answer. Others valued discovering that people in other co-ops were wrestling with many of the same unresolved questions.
The fishbowl format was also said to support a different kind of participation: listening without immediately preparing a response, speaking without needing to persuade, and allowing ideas to develop through the contributions of others.
There was appreciation for the possibility of being provocative without turning the dialogue into controversy, and of sitting with uncertainty rather than rushing toward consensus or a predetermined solution.
Several reflections suggested that simply bringing these questions into a shared space made them feel lighter, more expansive, and more connected to the broader cooperative movement.
Participant reflections“I found a lot of things that I've been thinking about also being said out loud, which has been really helpful. I thought, am I just not smart enough to figure this out? Oh, no, nobody's cracked this, not yet. It's good to find community in that.”
“This format is really useful because it enables a flow of dialogue. I mean, this is what dialogue is… It's very comforting and enlightening to be part of that. It just keeps flowing, and it's like… it keeps flowering.”
“Not looking for a solution or an answer is helpful, because it allows a group dynamic in a different way.”
“These kinds of topics tend to circle around in my own head, and as they circle they keep feeling heavier and heavier. And even without solving anything – just speaking my own internal dialogue out and hearing from all of you – it makes it lighter for me, and more expansive.”